Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

Stoke-on-Trent Corporation [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE.

Mr. WINDSOR: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions what reason, if any, was given for the resignation of the Special Grants Committee, and whether the respective parties in the House will be consulted about the membership of the Special Grants Committee should it be necessary to appoint a new Committee?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Certain members of the Committee, I regret to say, recently resigned on the ground that they differed from me as to the procedure to be adopted in reviewing, and, so far as necessary, re-organising certain branches of their work, particularly on its educational side, and because they wished to give me a free hand in this re-organisation. I have made the necessary new appointments. The suggestion contained in the last part of the hon. Member's question would be
a departure from past practice, and I do not think it would be desirable to introduce political considerations into the formation of a Committee whose functions are of an administrative character.

Mr. R. MORRISON: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman states that "certain members" have resigned. Can he say how many?

Major TRYON: I believe nine or ten.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has recently made any fresh appointments to fill vacancies on the Special Grants Committee; and, if so, whether he will state the membership and the qualifications of members of the committee as at present constituted?

Major TRYON: I have had occasion to make several new appointments to the membership of the Special Grants Committee. I am glad to say that I have succeeded in securing the services of several persons of wide experience, both administrative and practical, in regard to education, as well, of course, as persons intimately and actively acquainted with the general work of the Ministry. The Committee, of which my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, has very kindly consented to act for the time being as chairman, consists, as at present constituted, of 12 persons. I am causing the names and qualifications of the members to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman any known Socialist on this Special Grants Committee?

Major TRYON: I have endeavoured to appoint those who have a knowledge of pensions work, without any regard whatever to political considerations.

Mr. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, as considerable alteration has taken place in the Committee, there will be some alteration in the Regulations concerning the education grants?

Major TRYON: I have told the hon. Member already that we are going into the whole question of education grants, and I think he has also been told in
the House that he has been under a complete misapprehension in his references to this Committee, who are voluntary workers doing a very difficult work.

Mr. MORRISON: On a point of Order. I have never taken part in any Debate in this House upon education grants, and I cannot understand why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should make such an attack upon me.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: He is going out of his way to be nasty.

Following is the statement promised:

SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE.

(Membership as at 27th April, 1926.)

Names and Qualifications.

Lieut.-Colonel the Hon. G. F. Stanley, C.M.G., M.P. (Chairman).
Mr. T. M. Taylor, C.B.E. (Vice-Chairman), Chairman, Education and Finance Committees, Hampshire County Council.
*Colonel A. D. Acland, C.B.E., Member of old Committee.
Mr. R. F. Cholmeley, Headmaster, Dame Alice Owen School, Finsbury.
Mr. A. Cunnison, Assistant Secretary, Awards Division, Ministry of Pensions.
Admiral Cresswell Eyres, D.S.O., late Member of Chatham War Pensions Committee.
Miss C. Keeling, J.P., Westminster War Pensions Committee.
Mr. C. W. Maudslay. Assistant Secretary, Board of Education.
Mr. Arthur Richmond, Secretary, Social Service Council, Ex-Assistant Education Officer, Kent County Council.
Mrs. B. Ross-Smyth, O.B.E., J.P., Perth War Pensions Committee.
Mr. B. J. Saunders, J.P., Chairman, Brighton War Pensions Committee.
Mr. A. G. Webb, Chief Officer, Pensions Department, British Legion.

* At present abroad.

DISABILITY PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether a man commuting part of his disability pension would receive payment in accordance with the table of values shown in Notes on War Pensions (second issue), dated
March, 1926, or at the higher rate of values given in Army Order 50, 1926, published in February, 1926?

Major TRYON: A man commuting part of a Great War disability pension receives payment according to the table of rates given in Army Order 50, of 1926. The Notes on War Pensions (second issue) were in print before the new scale was promulgated, and the necessary Amendments will be issued in due course.

TIME LIMIT.

Major COHEN: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is prepared to follow the example of the United States of America, which allows ex-service men suffering from tuberculosis, neuropsychosis, paralysis agitans, encephalitis lethargica, and amoebic dysentery to receive pension provided they can prove the service origin of such disability, irrespective of the date on which the claim is submitted?

Major TRYON: If, as I gather, ray hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the preferential terms given to the diseases specified by Section 200 of the World War Veterans Act, 1924, it is not correct to state that such preferential terms are accorded "irrespective of the date on which the claim is submitted." By the provisions of the Section these terms were only accorded to men who showed, prior to the 1st January, 1925, that they were suffering in an appreciable degree from these disabilities. I am not prepared to recommend that the provisions for War compensation adopted by this country should be modified on the lines suggested.

Major COHEN: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that, although there is normally a seven years' time limit for the submission of claims for disablement pensions in Canada, that Dominion accepts any entry in the service or medical documents of the member of the forces showing the existence of an injury or disease as the date thereof for first claim for pension; that in South Africa there is no period fixed within which claims for disablement pensions must be submitted by ex-service officers and men; and that under a law passed on the 9th January, 1926, the time limit fixed for the submission of claims for War pensions in France has been extended
from 4th September, 1924, to 31st December, 1928, he is prepared to reconsider the principle of the seven years' time limit for claims in this country?

Major TRYON: It is difficult, within the limits of an oral answer, to set out the comparative position as regards war pension provisions under British and foreign pension systems. I would point out, however, as regards Canada, that the time limits laid down by the Canadian Pensions Act of 1925 are generally narrower than those adopted in this country, and the provision referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend for the acceptance of claims beyond the normal time limits is, in fact, narrower than the conditions which I have indicated to the House as governing the grant of compensation which I have been enabled to make in cases of claim beyond the time limit. With regard to the French system, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, I would point out that he has omitted to notice that the extension referred to is contingent on the production of proof by the claimant that his disability is due to war service. This condition, which governs all claims made since September, 1924, is more restrictive than the British Warrants, and if applied would have ruled out many cases that have been admitted under the British system. Apart from the case of the Union of South Africa, my hon. and gallant Friend has conclusively shown that the principle of a time limit is being generally adhered to, and in these circumstances I am not prepared to recommend that that principle (coupled with the administrative provision for exceptional cases which I have been enabled to make) should be abolished from the pension system in this country.

Mr. SPENCER: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that in all quarters of the House there is a strong feeling that the seven years' limit presses unduly hardly in many cases and can he not give it reconsideration?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member is aware that there was a unanimous decision of the House in favour of the seven years' limit, which was maintained by the late Labour Government.

Mr. SPENCER: But has it not proved to be a rule which presses with undue severity upon a great many people, and is not that a fact which comes under the notice of all Members of this House?

Major TRYON: I have already said that where exceptional cases arise, the Government are prepared to deal with them. I think we are working on the same lines as almost every country in the world.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (STAFF REDUCTIONS).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions why, in view of his undertaking, single non-disabled men are still being retained in the Special Grants committee branch of the Ministry, whereas married men employed in other branches of the Ministry are being dismissed?

Major TRYON: I do not know to what undertaking the hon. Member refers. The demobilisation of the temporary male clerical staff is proceeding strictly on the lines of the recommendations of Lord Lytton's Committee, the first of which was the consideration of efficiency. Frequent changes due to demobilisation in the staff employed on special grants work have made it necessary in the interests of efficiency to suspend, for the time being, the issue of further notices to the temporary clerks who are experienced in that work. I would add that all the single temporary clerks concerned have been in receipt of disability pensions.

Mr. MORRISON: 3.
also asked the Minister of Pensions how many married overseas men have been discharged from the Ministry during the past 12 months; how many are at present under notice; and, in view of the present scarcity of clerical employment, will he consider their temporary retention until the Joint Substitution Board has found alternative employment?

Major TRYON: Approximately 150 married men with overseas service have been discharged during the past 12 months, and about 50 men in the same category are at present under notice. I regret that I should not be justified in retaining even temporarily staff for whom there is no work.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE DELINQUENCY COMMITTEE.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Departmental Committee on Juvenile Delinquency first met; how many meetings have been held; and when it is anticipated that the Report will be received?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The first meeting of the Committee was held on the 20th January, 1925, and the Committee have met on 49 occasions. The field of inquiry is a large one but I understand that the Committee is likely to present its Report in the autumn.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE.

DETECTIVE OFFICERS (RESIGNATION).

Colonel DAY: 10.
asked the Home Secretary the number of detective officers who have resigned from the Metropolitan Police during the last 12 months, prior to completion of service for which a pension would be payable?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Only five detective officers with less than 25 years' service left the Metropolitan Police Force during the last 12 months. They had all been found medically unfit for further service; four of them were granted pensions on medical grounds and the fifth, whose service was short, received a gratuity.

STRENGTH OF FORCE.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Metropolitan Police Force is now at full strength: if not, by what amount of men it is below strength; and what is being done so recruit the full number required?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The force is nearly at full strength, the vacancies being about 90, which can be filled by the normal recruiting arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARRIAGE (LEGAL AGE).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to introduce legislation to raise the legal age of marriage?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is a very difficult question. It is still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to when this question may be put down again?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am very anxious to be able to make some statement to the House on the subject, but the more I have dived into the ancient marriage laws of the country, the more difficult the subject appears to me. I am not at all sure that it will not turn out that the legal age for marriage is two.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is not that a proper question for the Committee on Juvenile Delinquency?

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR TRAFFIC (ACCIDENTS).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 12.
asked the Home Secretary the number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, resulting from motor traffic since the beginning of the year?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The figures for Greater London up to 31st March were approximately as follow:
Fatal accidents, 178; persons killed, 179. Non-fatal accidents, 6,178; persons injured, 6,613.
The corresponding figures for the rest of the country are not available.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how those figures compare with the previous year's?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot carry the figures in my head, but if the hon. and gallant. Member will put down a question I will answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

OPEN AIR SCHOOL, ROTHERHAM.

Mr. LINDLEY: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, now that Circular 1371 has been withdrawn and Memorandum 44 superseded, he will indicate that there is no need for the Rotherham education authority to further delay proceedings with the erection of the buildings in connection with the open-air school which had necessarily to
be suspended in consequence of the proposals contained in Circular 1371 and Memorandum 44?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): In submitting their programme for 1927–30, which is now being examined, the authority intimated that they desired to initiate this proposal during the current financial year. The Board had not previously received any particulars of the scheme, and some of the particulars now furnished will require consideration. In view of this fact and of the substantial increase in the authority's expenditure on orthopædic and other medical services which the Board have approved for this year, I think this project will have to be postponed to the programme period.

COOKERY INSTRUCTION.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Education, what opportunities are afforded to the children in elementary and secondary schools to acquire a practical knowledge of cookery; and what percentage of those passing through the schools acquire this knowledge?

Lord E. PERCY: It is generally recognised that, wherever possible, practical instruction in domestic subjects, including cookery, should be given to the older girls in elementary schools, and the latest complete returns show that 480,954 girls, out of 991,402 aged 11 and over on the registers, received such instruction. I regret that I have no corresponding figure as to pupils in secondary schools, but the Regulations provide that the curriculum for girls must include provision for practical instruction in domestic subjects.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is there any reason why a boy who shows aptitude should not learn something of this useful occupation?

Lord E. PERCY: There is no reason, but, generally speaking, the practical instruction given to boys naturally takes another form.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHIEF CONSTABLE (EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).

Sir JAMES REMNANT: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether he considers
that the the previous police experience required by the Police Regulations before a candidate is eligible for appointment as a chief officer of police is met by a course of tuition under a chief constable; and, if not, whether he proposes to withhold his consent to the appointment of Captain A. F. Horden as chief constable of the East Riding of Yorkshire?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have decided to approve the appointment. Captain Horden had other qualifications than those mentioned.

Sir J. REMNANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state one qualification which this young serving officer, serving up to the date of his appointment, had over those who had already applied?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In view of the dissatisfaction which continuously arises in making these appointments, does the right hon. Gentleman not think the time has arrived to lay down some specific police experience as a qualification?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must apologise to the House if I make rather a long answer, but the position is this: Under the Regulations I am bound to appoint someone connected with the police force, unless there is some other candidate who has special and exceptional qualifications and is of less than 40 years of age—I am paraphrasing the rule—who would, in my view, make a suitable Chief Constable. About two months ago, as the House knows, I refused to sanction the appointment of an outside Army officer as Chief Constable, on the ground that he had no exceptional qualifications—

Sir J. REMNANT: And of age.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: —and of age. In this case the appointing authority—I am only the confirming authority— appointed this Army officer, who had the most exceptional qualifications. He served in a magisterial and police capacity in Nigeria; he served in connection with the police force in Ireland; he served during the War in the Intelligence Department of the War Office here, in close touch with police matters, and I could not possibly say he had not really many good qualifications indeed to make a chief constable. In those circumstances, my sole desire being to get the best man, I approved the appointment.

Sir J. REMNANT: 15.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that several well-qualified candidates from the police service were prepared to accept the position of chief constable of the East Riding of Yorkshire; and, if so, whether he considers the qualifications of Captain A. F. Horden meets the requirements of the police regulations governing the appointment of chief constables, which state that no person without previous experience shall be appointed to any such post unless he possesses some exceptional qualification or experience which specially fits him for the post, or there is no candidate from the police service who is considered sufficiently well qualified?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Colonel ENGLAND: 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether any anomalies in connection with the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act have been brought to his notice, especially in connection with the position of middle-aged wives and older husbands; and whether he will consider the need for a small amending Bill next year?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have received several suggestions for the amendment of the Act, but am not clear what is the particular point the hon. and gallant Member has in mind. If he will send me more specific information, I will consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRICKS AND BRICKLAYERS.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 22.
asked the Minister of Health the approximate number of bricklayers in this country in the year 1914 and at the present time; and the number of bricks produced in this country in 1914 and at the present time?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to the question which he addressed to me on these subjects on the 21st instant.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply does not
give figures for the date asked, and may I ask if those figures are available?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the reply referred the hon. Member to another reply given on the same subject.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the other reply did not give these particulars, and is it possible to have the figures?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have given all the information I can.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are importing bricks at the present moment from Belgium, while our own brickyards are lying idle?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

Mr. RILEY: 25.
asked the Minister of Health the number of bricks imported into Great Britain for the years 1913, 1924, and 1925, respectively; and the comparative price per 1,000 for each of the three years mentioned?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have been asked to reply, and, as my answer includes a table of figures, I propose, with the concurrence of the hon. Member, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table of figures:


IMPORTS of bricks into the United Kingdom in the years specified have been as follow:—


Year.
Quantity of Bricks of Brick earth or clay registered as imported.
Declared Value thereof.


Total.
Per thousand bricks.



Thousands.
£
£
s.
d.


1913
2,814
5,537
1
19
4


1924
85,042
216,987
2
11
0


1925
159,035
452,437
2
16
11

Mr. RILEY: 27.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received any reports from the officials of his Department as to the low quality of certain bricks which are being imported into Great Britain from Continental countries; and whether any bricks of such quality are being used in the building of houses in respect of which Government subsidy has to be paid?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not received any reports of the character suggested by the first part of the hon. Member's question, and I have no information which would support the suggestion in the second part.

Mr. RILEY: Do the Minister's officials take any steps to ascertain the quality of the bricks used in houses built with a Government subsidy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; it is a condition of the subsidy that the material should be of a proper character.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House where we may get particulars about the wages and labour conditions under which these foreign goods are being manufactured?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That question should be addressed to the Board of Trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — RELIEVING OFFICERS, EAST GRINSTEAD.

Colonel DAY: 24.
asked the Minister of Health if he has sanctioned the application of the East Grinstead Rural District Council to allow relieving officers in the employ of the local board of guardians to collect the rentals of the council's houses; and the amount of extra remuneration that is to be paid such officers for this additional duty?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have now received an application, and am making inquiries in regard to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AND RURAL RATES.

Mr. RILEY: 26.
asked the Minister of Health the total amount of local rates raised by local authorities in England and Wales in the latest financial year for which the Return is available; and the amount paid by local authorities in interest upon loans for the same period?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am about to issue a Report showing the rates levied in urban areas in England and Wales. This Report contains a table giving the total receipts by local authorities from rates for the years ending 31st March, 1914–26. I will send the hon. Member a
copy of the Report in a few days. As regards the last part of the question, the latest complete information relates to the year ended 31st March, 1924. In that year the interest on loans for capital purposes amounted to £36,856,000. The rates collected in that year amounted to £143,275,459.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the city treasurer of Preston does publish annually a very valuable booklet giving the whole of this information, and, if necessary, will the Department duplicate it?

Mr. HURD: Can we have similar information with regard to rural rates? This question relates to local rates generally.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it includes information about rural rates.

Mr. HURD: The right hon. Gentleman said urban rates.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will give further consideration to the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — PANEL PATIENTS (DRUGS).

Colonel DAY: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to hold an inquiry as to the purity of drugs supplied to panel patients?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Arrangements have already been made, and are now in operation, for the systematic analysis of sample prescriptions, with the object of testing the purity of ingredients and the accuracy of dispensing. I see no necessity, therefore, for such an inquiry as the hon. Member suggests.

Colonel DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any objections from the Pharmaceutical Society?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — VAGRANCY.

Mr. VIANT: 29.
asked the Minister of Health if he is prepared to institute an inquiry as to the prevalence of vagrancy in view of the closing of vagrant wards during the War and the difficulty of
boards of guardians with regard to accommodation and the expense of enlarging wards; and, as this is a national question, whether such an inquiry will precede the reform of the Poor Law?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: From the information available, it would appear that the numbers of vagrants are at a lower level than was generally the case in the years before the War, and I do not think that there is any ground for such special inquiry as the hon. Member suggests. I may remind him that a survey of casual wards was undertaken and the results published in 1924, and a new Order made, which came into force last year.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not possible that there could be some provision here. For instance, only yesterday there were a man and a woman who arrived here with five children. They walked all the way from Scotland, and they were right up against it, starving. They had nowhere to go, the eldest of those children was 10 years of age, and we had nowhere to put them. Is there nothing that the Minister of Health—because this is a question of health, and it is human beings we are dealing with—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

Mr. SPEAKER: Clearly the Minister cannot answer a question of that sort without notice. Will the hon. Member please put it on the Paper?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is there not congestion in some casual wards owing to the Minister's Order imposing two days' detention, which has been observed by some guardians and not by others?

Mr. SPEAKER: That again, I think, should be put on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — LANDED ESTATES (FORMATION OF LIMITED COMPANIES).

Mr. WINDSOR: 31.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the action of landed proprietors in turning their estates into companies; and whether, seeing that such companies will result in a loss of revenue to the country in Income Tax and Death Duties, it is proposed to take any action to prevent such loss?

Mr. ROBINSON: 34.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the increasing number of landed proprietors who are forming their estates into limited companies for the purpose of avoiding Income Tax and Death Duties; and whether it is proposed to take any action to prevent the loss of revenue that follows the formation of these companies?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to cases of the type alluded to. The effect of such action on the revenue will be carefully watched.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 32.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of persons assessed for 1925–26 in respect of earned income and the total earned income of the persons assessed, and the amount of reduction in assessment resulting from the allowance of one-sixth in respect of earned income?

Mr. McNEILL: I regret that I am unable to give numbers of persons in receipt of earned income for any year, and statistics of the amount of income assessed for the year 1925–26 will not be available for some considerable time.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 36.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to include in the forthcoming Finance Bill proposals to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax so far as collectors of Income Tax: are concerned?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 27th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne).

Oral Answers to Questions — HAMPTON COURT PALACE TELEPHONES.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 39.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the sum of £768 is provided in the Estimates for telephones at Hampton Court, which is inhabited for the most part by
private persons; and whether, in view of the need for public economy, he is taking any action in reducing this Estimate?

Captain HACKING (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The whole of the charge in question is a payment to the Post Office in respect of a fire-alarm system installed for the protection of the Palace.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 44.
asked the Secretary for State for Air how many officers and airmen, respectively, of the Royal Air Force have refused duty or been guilty of other acts of insubordination during the last 12 months as a result of supposed Communist propaganda and incitement; and whether he has traced any weakening of the discipline of His Majesty's Royal Air Force as the direct, or indirect, result of such alleged incitement and propaganda?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): As regards the first part of the question, it is impossible to trace all the motive causes which may have contributed to any particular act of insubordination, and the answer to the second part is, therefore, in the negative.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has noticed any increase of acts of insubordination from any cause at all in the Royal Air Force?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir; I have not.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then why does the right hon. Gentleman not admit that this propaganda has had no effect whatsoever?

Sir S. HOARE: For the reason I have given—that in any case of insubordination it is impossible to assign exactly the motives that have caused it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not due to the honour of the Royal Air Force to say that there has been no weakening of discipline owing to this propaganda?

Sir S. HOARE: I cannot add anything further to my answer. I have given the
hon. and gallant Member an answer to his question, and have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION (ROSYTH DOCKYARD).

Mr. W. M'LEAN WATSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government have yet caused any inquiry to be made into the suitability of part of the land and equipment in Rosyth Dockyard for the installation on a large scale of low-temperature carbonisation plant; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of having such an inquiry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): I have been asked to reply. I understand that a firm interested in low carbonisation has already, in collaboration with the Corporation of Dunfermline, made an inspection of the premises at Rosyth. If any proposals result, they will receive sympathetic consideration.

NATIONAL COAL, TRUST.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the present coal situation, he has had his attention called to the advantages of a national coal trust, propounded in detail in 1893, and accepted at the time by a large section of the coal owners, from which large savings would result; and whether he can take any steps to secure that these savings shall be used to cheapen the selling price of coal and raise the wages of the coal miners?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Prime Minister is aware of the proposals put forward in 1893, and of the advantages claimed for them. As the hon. Member is aware, co-operation in the selling of coal is recommended by the Royal Commission, and is a subject to which the colliery owners have undertaken to give "careful and immediate consideration."

Mr. JOHNSTON: In view of the gravity of this question at the present time, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that co-operation in the selling of coal forms only a very small part of the proposals put forward by Sir George Elliot, a leading coal master in the county of Durham, in 1893, and that the chief saving was not
in the selling of coal at all, but in the waste and inefficiency which have gone on for the past 33 years, because nothing has been done with his proposals; and can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the proposals have been considered in the recent negotiations, and, if so, with what results?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think I would sooner not make a statement at the present moment on behalf of the Prime Minister. As the House knows, he has been for days past, and is at the moment, engaged on the coal question, and I would ask the hon. Member not to press this question.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In view of the appeal, I do not press the point further, but I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to represent to the Prime Minister that these proposals were carefully laid before the country, were approved of by the majority of the coal lessees at the time, and that Sir George Elliot allowed for an immediate increase of wages to the coalminers of 10 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] Is it the case that these proposals would have secured an immediate increase of wages, a reduction of the selling price of coal, and brought peace into the industry; and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that his proposals will be immediately brought before the Prime Minister?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will, of course, undertake to tell him of the hon. Member's question, and draw his attention to it.

UNPROFITABLE MINES.

Sir W. de FRECE: 48.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of mines which are being carried on at a loss, and the amount of capital sunk in them?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. In February, the latest month for which particulars are available, returns supplied by 808 undertakings covering practically the whole of the industry, show that 602, producing 72 per cent. of the output, were worked at a loss before crediting subvention. My right hon. Friend has no information about the amount of capital invested in these undertakings. He would also refer my hon. Friend to the figures given on 23rd April, in reply to a question put to him by the hon. Member for Hereford
(Mr. S. Roberts), showing the tonnage produced in different districts during the quarter ending December, 1925, at a profit and at a loss respectively before crediting subsidy.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House why such a large percentage of the total collieries are working at a loss, and can he tell us whether the Report of the Commission does not bear out that it is largely due to the inefficiency of the collieries themselves?

Mr. SPENCER: Is it possible to say whether there has been an increase in the number of collieries that have been suffering a loss since the subvention was granted?

Major BARNSTON: I am not connected with the Department, so that I cannot answer the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NECESSITOUS AREAS (GRANTS).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will now publish, for the use of Members, the Report of Sir Henry Goschen's Committee on the question of Grants-in-aid to necessitous areas?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to reply. The Report has been presented, and will be available in a day or two.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD WINES AND SPIRITS (IMPORTS).

Major Sir RICHARD BARNETT: 33.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantities of wines and spirits more than 100 years old were imported into the United Kingdom during the past year; and the total amount of the customs duties paid in respect of such imports?

Mr. McNEILL: I regret that the information desired is not available.

Sir R. BARNETT: Might I ask if it would not be possible to exempt Napoleon brandy from duty, either as an antique or as a work of art?

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS (PRICES).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 37.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is now prepared to review the basis on
which the prices for official publications are fixed, so that the public may be encouraged to purchase at surplus product prices which will yield a profit to His Majesty's Stationery Office publications, of which the public sale has been practically stopped by the heavy prices now charged?

Mr. McNEILL: A full answer on this subject was given to my hon. Friend by my predecessor on the 4th March, 1925, to which I would refer him. I am afraid I can add nothing to what was then said.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sale of a great many publications has practically come to an end owing to the abnormal prices charged, which have no commercial justification whatever.

Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. Member will make representations to me, I shall be very glad to consider them.

Mr. SPENCER: Is not the recent reduction in the price of the Report of the Coal Commission a justification for further reductons in the price of other publications?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir; not at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRIVY SEAL (PRIVATE SECRETARY).

Captain CROOKS HANK: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the Estimate for the Lord Privy Seal's private secretary which for 1926 is more than double what it was in 1925; whether he can give any explanation; and whether, in view of the need for public economy, he will have the matter reconsidered?

Mr. McNEILL: On the appointment of the Lord Privy Seal as Leader of the House of Lords, the salary of his private secretary was increased from £384 to £600 per annum. The increase was given on account of the additional duties devolving upon the private secretary in consequence of the appointment referred to, and I see no ground for reconsidering the matter.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Is this private secretary in receipt of other emoluments from public funds?

Mr. McNEILL: Not so far as I am aware, but I would not like to be positive without notice.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the need for public economy, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the abolition of the office of Privy Seal altogether—never mind the private secretary?

Mr. McNEILL: That question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPECIAL TRAINS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 41.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the provision in the Estimates of the Lord President of the Council of £40 for special trains; when such trains are likely to be required; and whether, in view of the need for public economy, ordinary railway facilities can be employed?

Major HENNESSY(Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The heading "Special Trains, etc.," covers the travelling expenses of persons summoned to attend Councils held by His Majesty out of London. It has only once been round necessary within the last few years to employ a special train, and the general practice is for ordinary railway facilities to be employed.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many special trains he can get for £40?

Major HENNESSY: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY METERS.

Viscount SANDON: 49.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the desirability of taking power to safeguard the consumer by inflicting penalties on electricity companies where the power and light meters are in fault and record excessive readings, and by inspection of such meters?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I do not propose to suggest an alteration in the existing law on this subject, which, in my opinion, already adequately safeguards the interests of the consumer.

Viscount SANDON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the safeguards?

Colonel ASHLEY: The safeguards are, I think, adequate. The aggrieved party can apply for the appointment of an electrical inspector, who then decides the matter.

Viscount SANDON: At a cost.

Captain GARRO-JONES: How is it possible for the consumer to know whether the meter is overcharging or not? Is it incumbent upon him to have an inspection whenever he goes into a new dwelling?

Colonel ASHLEY: I should think he would ascertain that from the size of his bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD RELIEF SCHEME, PERTH (WAGES AND CONDITIONS).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the case of a young man, engaged on the Dalmaspidal road relief scheme, fainting as a, result of starvation and exposure at Muirton Park, Perth; whether he has had the doctor's report on this case; whether he is aware that the young man is still suffering from shell shock as a result of the War; and if he is satisfied that the wages rates and conditions on this relief scheme are satisfactory, and that the men being sent to the scheme by the Labour Exchanges are properly selected as suitable for the rigours and hardships of the work?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have no information regarding the incident referred to, but I am having inquiries made and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible. I am advised that the rate of wages paid is the current rate and the conditions of work satisfactory. No complaint has reached me that the men sent to the work are unsuitable, but I will make inquiries on that point also.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Seeing that personally I have been in communication with his Department and I had had letters from his superiors and the Department, and that this matter—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] I will put it in the form of a question. Is it not the case that the conditions of labour of this particular road, the Dalmaspidal Road relief scheme, have been the subject matter of controversy in the Scottish Press for over a month; has not the Department had special inquiries made into it, and have not letters been written and answers given in this House.?

Mrs. BETTERTON: I am well aware of that. I do not think the hon. Gentleman could have caught my answer, which was to the effect that no complaint has reached me that the men sent to the work are unsuitable.

Mr. JOHNSTON: That is one of the points upon which questions have already been asked and answered in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND TURKEY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can report any progress in the negotiations with Turkey for the settlement of outstanding questions; whether a mutual neutrality pact between Britain and Turkey has been under discussion; and whether an offer of a guaranteed loan for development purposes has been made to Turkey?

The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The latest reports which have been received from Sir Ronald Lindsay indicate that his negotiations with the Turkish Government are proceeding in a friendly spirit, and certain proposals made to him by the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs are now being examined as sympathetically as possible by His Majesty's Government. It would not be in the public interest to say more at this stage.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not propose to press the matter, but would it not be possible to give an outline of the kind of conditions we are prepared to grant, because they have been generally published in Turkey and have appeared already in the Press?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In view of the course of the negotiations, I think it would be most inadvisable.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).

Captain REID: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will obtain reports from His Majesty's representatives abroad as to the provision made in the countries to which they are accredited for unemployment by means of State insurance?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is possible that much of this information is already in the possession of the International Labour Office. I will inquire as to this, and communicate further with the hon. and gallant Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROSYTH DOCKYARD (TRANSFERRED EMPLOYES).

Mr. W. M. WATSON: 59.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that, owing to the failure of some of the men transferred from Rosyth to southern dockyards to find housing accommodation for their wives and families and the inadequate amount paid for subsistence allowance, they are unable to send an amount sufficient to maintain their dependants at Rosyth, who are thus becoming chargeable to the Parish of Dunfermline; if he is aware that already one woman with seven children is receiving parish relief, while many others are in similar circumstances and may be compelled to make application; and what steps he is taking to provide accommodation for these men and their families?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given on the 24th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 499–500), and on 28th April to the hon. and gallant Member for Central South-wark (OFFICIAL EFFORT, column 2017).

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the last part of the question refers to the dependants of a man who has become chargeable to the Parish of Dunfermline? What steps are he or his Department taking to see that these men are paid sufficient to be able to keep their families?

Mr. DAVISON: That question has already been answered.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that this family has become chargeable to the Poor Law authorities, what steps are the Department taking, if any, to see that this man is so employed by the Department that his family do not come under the Poor Law?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Robinson—

Mr. BUCHANAN: But, Mr. Speaker, in this question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] Are we not entitled to some answer? Here is a family of seven going to the workhouse!

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE (EMPLOYERS' REPRESENTATIVE)

Mr. MARDY JONES (for Mr. SCURR): 55.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received a protest from the Indian Merchants' Chamber with reference to the nomination of Sir Arthur Froom as the Indian employers' representative at the forthcoming session of the International. Labour Conference at Geneva; and if he will give the name of the representative Indian organisation consulted by the Government in connection with this nomination in accordance with Article 389 of the Versailles Treaty?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA(Earl Winterton): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. It is not the practice of the Government of India to consult individual organisations regarding the nomination of delegates to International Labour Conferences, but to issue a Press communique inviting associations to send in their recommendations. The usual course was followed on the present occasion and recommendations were received from Chambers of Commerce, Bengal, Bombay and the United Provinces, the Indian Merchants' Chamber, Bombay, and the Buyers' and Shippers' Chamber, Karachi. The Bengal and Bombay Chambers of Commerce recommended Sir Arthur Froom, and as these bodies include nearly all the shipping interests of India, while none of the others represents any substantial amount of ship-
ping, the Government of India thought it their clear duty, under Article 389 of the Treaty of Versailles, to nominate Sir Arthur Froom.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the Noble Lord tell us whether the practice obtaining in India in this connection coincides with the practice of this country?

Earl WINTERTON: I think the hon. Gentleman must see that I must have notice of that question. The hon. Gentleman will realise that it is no part of my official duty to know what the practice is here. The practice in India, I can assure him, is in accordance with the rules laid down by the international body.

ANDAMAN ISLANDS.

Mr. SCURR: 56.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the decision of the Government of India to spend Rs.4½ lakhs on the reclamation of the swamps in the Andaman Islands was taken after consultation with the Committee of Imperial Defence or the Admiralty; whether such decision was approved by the legislative assembly; and whether the amount is a final charge on the Indian revenues?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, because no question of defence arises. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

POSTMARK ADVERTISEMENTS.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 51.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in connection with the proposal to affix advertisements by way of postmark and to collect fees for so doing, he can indicate the scale at which it is proposed to assess small advertisements calling attention to purely civic functions; and whether he is aware that many towns are making their plans for the summer accordingly and would appreciate early guidance on the point?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): My right hon. Friend is consulting with the Post Office Advisory Council as to the best
method of obtaining the maximum revenue from advertisements from post office date stamps, if and when statutory authority for their use is obtained, but he is not in a position at present to make any statement on the subject.

Colonel DAY: Will the Noble Lord say whether the offer of these advantages is going to be submitted to public tender?

Viscount WOLMER: I can only repeat what I have said, that the Postmaster-General is now in consultation with the Advisory Committee of the Post Office, and is considering how out of these stamps he can obtain the most money.

Sir J. NALL: Will the Noble Lord undertake that in date-stamp advertisements of this kind he will not advertise the goods of competitors in the same class of goods?

Viscount WOLMER: That is a matter which undoubtedly the Postmaster is considering, but competitors to a large extent have the remedy in their own hands by themselves hiring the date stamps and so stamping their own letters.

Mr. SPENCER: Will these advertisements be open to the sellers of Belgiam bricks?

ISLAY (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 52.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that wireless telephones have been installed between the mainland and lightships and lighthouses in many parts of the world, and are very efficient; that the distance between the points of communication are in many of these cases much less than the distance between Tayinloan, on the mainland, and Port Ellen, in the Island of Islay; that a wireless telephone could be installed between these two points for a capital sum of about £1,000, and can be operated without any skilled operative; and whether, in view of the cost of the installation of an ordinary telephone with a deep-sea cable, he will have installed, either by the Post Office or by private enterprise under licence from the Post Office, a system of wireless telephony between Islay and the mainland?

Viscount WOLMER: This matter is under consideration; I will communicate further with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY BILL.

Mr. ROBINSON: 16.
asked the Home Secretary on what date it is proposed to introduce the Factory Bill; and whether, in view of the great interest aroused among industrial and clerical workers, he will submit the Bill to the House at the earliest possible date?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I stated in reply to a similar question last Thursday, I am not at present in a position to fix the date for the introduction of this Bill. All I can promise is that it will be introduced during the present Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNCLASSIFIED ROADS (GRANTS).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 50.
asked the Minister of Transport whether all authorities which are responsible for the upkeep of unclassified roads in country districts will receive help from the sum of £1,250,000, which is to be granted for the upkeep of these roads; and what conditions, if any, will have to be complied with before grants are made?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is the intention that all authorities administering areas essentially rural in character should be eligible for benefits under the allocation to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The conditions are set forth in Circular No. 234 (Roads), which has been issued to local authorities, and of which I am sending him a copy.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered doing away with the present conditions and giving a flat-rate for all the roads of this class, and will he urge the desirability of this upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Colonel ASHLEY: That opens up a very big question, which I could not answer at the present moment.

An HON. MEMBER: Are we to understand that out of the £3,000,000 extra to be expended on the roads this year the rural roads are getting only £1,250,000?

Colonel ASHLEY: What the hon. Gentleman has to understand is that the rural roads of Great Britain are to get £500,000 more than the hon. Gentleman imagined a fortnight ago.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the roads of Scotland are going to get?

Colonel ASHLEY: Scotland gets a very generous allocation of £100,000.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can state the business for next week?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): Monday and Tuesday: Report stage of the Budget Resolutions.
Wednesday, until 8.15, discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition relating to the Chairman of Ways and Means, and consideration of the proposed Amendment to Standing Order 28; Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill, Report Third Reading; Secretaries of State Bill, Second Reading; Execution of Diligence (Scotland) Bill [Lords], Second Reading; and, if time permit, other Orders on the Paper.
Thursday: We shall conclude the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions, and, if time permit, consider other Orders on the Paper.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it intended to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule on Monday and Tuesday?

Commander EYRES MONSELL: Yes; I think we shall have to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule as a safeguard, but I hope it may not be necessary to sit late.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I see there is a Motion down for the suspension of the Eleven o ' Clock Rule to-night. Is it the intention to take any Bills to-night?

Commander EYRES MONSELL: No, Sir; that is only to safeguard the Building Votes on the Civil Service Estimates. The House knows that if we get those Votes, we effect economies in building operations.

Mr. HURD: ; May I ask whether it was not intended to take the Merchandise Marks Bill on Monday?

Commander EYRES MONSELL: Until Thursday, no programme is given. I had hoped that we might have taken the Merchandise Marks Bill next week, but the Opposition demanded more time for the discussion of the Budget Resolutions.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir William Joynson-Hicks.]

The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 87.

Division No. 194.]
AYES.
[3.33 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Agg Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lumley, L. R.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Faile, Sir Bertram G.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Fermoy, Lord
MacIntyre, Ian


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fielden, E. B.
McLean, Major A.


Apsley, Lord
Finburgh, S.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Forrest, W.
Malone, Major P. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Fraser, Captain Ian
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Meyer, Sir Frank


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gates, Percy
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Bennett, A. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.
Gower, Sir Robert
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Berry, Sir George
Grattan- Doyle, Sir N.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Betterton, Henry B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gretton, Colonel John
Murchison, C. K.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Neville, R. J.


Brass, Captain W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Briggs, J. Harold
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Briscoe. Richard George
Hammersley, S. S.
Nuttall, Ellis


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oakley, T.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hawke, John Anthony
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pielou, D. P.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Pilcher, G.


Bullock, Captain M.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Burman, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Preston, William


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Came, Gordon Hail
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Radford, E. A.


Campbell, E. T.
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Raine, W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Remnant, Sir James


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Holland, Sir Arthur
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Christle, J. A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ropner, Major L.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Salmon, Major I.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandon, Lord


Cooper, A. Duff
Huntingfield, Lord
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W)


Cope, Major William
Hurd, Percy A.
Shaw, Copt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Skelton, A. N.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jacob, A. E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smithers, Waldron


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jephcott, A. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davies, sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kindersley, Major Guy M,
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Duckworth John
Knox, Sir Alfred
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel w, H.


Elveden, Viscount
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


England, Colonel A.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Loder, J. de V.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Templeton, W. P.


Thorn, U-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Watts, Dr. T.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wells, S. R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Tinne, J. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wragg, Herbert


Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)



Waddington, R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir




Harry Barnston.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Riley, Ben


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst. W. (Bradford, South)
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Or. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W>


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lindley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Livingstone, A. M.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Greenall, T.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenwood, A, (Nelson and Colne)
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Grenfell, D. R, (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Murnin, H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Guest, L, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Warne and Mr. B. Smith.


Bill read a Second time.

DIVISIONS (STANDING ORDER 29)

Mr. HARDIE: I desire to raise a point of information. When I came to this House in 1922 I gave myself a working acquaintance with the Rules, and Standing Order 29 (2) says:
A Member is not obliged to vote.
My question is, Has that Rule at any time since then been altered, or at any time since then been suspended?

Mr. SPEAKER: That Standing Order has been in operation all the time.

Mr. HARDIE: Thank you, Sir.

ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]

ENGINEERS BILL,

"to provide for the registration of and to regulate the qualifications of Engineers," presented by Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS; supported by Sir Martin Conway, Rear-Admiral Sueter, Mr. Clarry, Colonel Crookshank, and Mr. Pielou; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Allotments (Scotland) Bill.

Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, without Amendment.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Members to
Standing Committee B (in respect of the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill [Lords] and the Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill [Lords]: Sir Burton Chadwick and Mr. Solicitor-General.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Law of Property (Amendment) Bill [Lords]: Mr. Attorney-General.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1926–1927.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

EMPIRE TRADE.

Mr. WADDINGTON: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House urges the need of utilising every opportunity to develop trade within the Empire.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Mr. WADDINGTON: The very serious condition of the export trade is too well known to require an array of figures. I have selected Empire trade not because of any difficulty with foreign trade or any disrespect to that trade but because that is the particular trade which is likely to be soonest developed, and our energies, if placed there, will give the quickest return and the trade is likely to be more permanent. The position to which I more particularly refer is connected with the great trade in cotton, which plays a very important part in the exports of this country. In order to give the House some idea of the importance of the cotton trade, I would like to point out that in 1913 cotton manufactures were exported to the extent of 7,100,000,000 yards and, of that 3,800,000,000 yards were sent to the Empire. Last year we exported only 2,100,000,000 yards to the Empire, and the problem we are faced with in Lancashire is unemployment caused by this great diminution of our export trade.
The question arises, have we as a country used every opportunity we can to develop trade within the Empire? Is the co-ordination between the Mother Country, the Dominions, India and our Dependencies so complete that we feel nothing is left to chance and nothing has been left undone. I am afraid that those who have a knowledge of our export trade will not give an affirmative answer
to that question. The lack of co-ordination in connection with our Empire trade is something which seriously retards the trade of the country. A very important Royal Commission reported in 1917 on this question, and an important feature of its recommendations was that there should be set up an Imperial Development Board, representing not only this country but India and all our Dominions and Dependencies. It was not intended that this Board should take the place of Imperial Conferences but that it should really be subservient to those Conferences. The Commission suggested that it would be a good thing for this Development Board to carry out the instructions of those Conferences and prepare Agendas for subsequent Conferences. Those interested in the next Imperial Conference will recognise that we are at the moment suffering from the lack of such a Development Board, and I hope it may be possible that when the Conference does meet they will put the subject which I am raising on the Agenda for discussion.
If I may speak of the conditions existing in Nigeria, I would like to say that we have a Dependency there the development of which would be a great advantage to both countries. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has recently been making an extensive tour in these regions, and he will no doubt report that we need to develop railway and transport facilities there because they are vitally needed for the development of Nigeria. That is exactly what the British Cotton Growing Association said in 1919, and I should like to know if we can have any new information on this point. In that year the British Cotton Crowing Association reported and made special plans for developing cotton growing in Nigeria. Railway extensions were suggested, but they have not been completed. Certain harbour developments were also suggested and they have not been completed. In 1925, although Nigeria is a prosperous Dependency, there had been no extension of railways in that country since 1919. Then last year 147 miles were added, and further small extensions are now proceeding. This only gives 1,276 miles of railway to serve that great Dependency. The rate of extension is quite insufficient. We have all this talk year after year about these developments being necessary, and we get much sympathy
from Minister after Minister. I think however we should now translate that sympathy into something more substantial.
In Nigeria it is not a question of getting the credit of the United Kingdom, because Nigeria is able to borrow on the security of her own revenue. If we could press upon the Department concerned, and upon the Government, the vital need of development in this particular part of our Empire, I am quite sure that money would go out from this country, which would produce employment, and goods would come back of which we stand most in need, namely, the raw material of our trade. I should like to read an extract from a speech which was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Colonial Secretary. He went to Manchester in June, 1921, and this is what he said, speaking of our Empire:
The neglect to develop the tropical possessions of the Crown is one of the most extraordinary features, to my mind, in the history of the last 20 years. Give these great fertile, teeming, virgin countries the scientific, modern, technical apparatus that they may require, in the way of harbours, railroads, light railways…and they will return you a plentiful reward for every pound invested in them. For every pound will go out, and can only go out, in the shape of the products of British labour, and for every pound there will come back raw material—cotton, rubber, fibre, and half-a-dozen other raw materials by which the industries of Great Britain will be nourished and revived and strengthened for the future that lies before them. It is a process which benefits all, and which benefits the natives as much as it does the planter or the British manufacturer here at home.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer made that declaration in 1921. He expressed extreme astonishment that for 20 years there had been neglect in developing the Empire. Five years have elapsed. Is it not going to be possible for the person who holds the office of Colonial Secretary in another 15 years' time to be able to make the same charge against ourselves, who are now responsible for the administration of our Empire? I would suggest that, if the same enthusiasm that was displayed by the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke to us in Manchester were put into operation now, we should get some development of the Empire, and some improvement in our trade which would be to the advantage of this country and of the Empire generally. The great diffi-
culty in these Dominions is that we neglect the making of surveys. They are an essential preliminary if we are going to have successful development, and I suggest to the Government that it would be easy even in these days of economy, to find a little money for securing a proper survey of our Dominions, so that, when the time is ripe for the expenditure, it will be made on areas which have been properly prepared and surveyed, and we shall get value for our money, instead of, as so frequently happens, there being a rush of enthusiasm in this country in the direction of, say, railway development, and then, when a few millions have been spent, it is realised that if there had only been a more accurate survey double the length of line could probably have been laid.
I come now to the subject of overseas trade, and am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department in his place. I think he has made an important proposal in connection with credit insurance. We all recognise the interest that he has taken in that question, and this matter of credit insurance is one in which the country is very keenly interested. What are to be the functions of the Committee? Who is going to benefit by the credit which this Government scheme will give? In the cotton trade, credits have been looked upon with some disfavour. It has been felt that Government interference in these credits was not necessary. But that has been the opinion very largely of the merchanting section. To my mind, the great difficulty which the cotton trade have had to face has been that due to the breaking-up, in 1920 and 1921, of the shippers, who provided the channel by which our Lancashire goods have been conveyed overseas, and there has been no substitution since then of people who could finance the carrying out of these great cotton trade operations. I suggest that we in Lancashire have, perhaps, paid too much attention to the local consideration that we could not get orders in Manchester, and that our mills had consequently to close, and we have not paid sufficient attention to the wider fact that in 1920 many of these shippers became bankrupt for hundred of thousands of pounds, many of them lost hundreds of thousands of pounds, and their resources were either completely destroyed or very much crippled. If we can now, when
prices are on a lower level, get some assistance by which we may rebuild the bridge that was then destroyed, we shall be able to restore some degree of prosperity to our great trade.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this credit will be given to those who send goods on consignment. After the failure of the shippers, this trade in sending goods on consignment has really become essential for the success of the industry. These thousands of millions of yards that are capable of being produced require some agency by which they may be exported. The ordinary agency has failed, and the enterprising manufacturer has to look to other quarters. What is happening? Some manufacturers have established direct connections with countries overseas. They have their own agents, and very often they have hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of goods there, available and ready to be used when the natives' purchasing season arrives. Unless these goods are sent on consignment, our trade languishes, because most of the merchants will only send goods when they have an actual order. The President of the Board of Trade shakes his head when I suggest that credit should be given to those who send out goods on consignment, but is it wrong to support the British manufacturer who is willing to take the risk? He does not want insurance of loss; he simply wants someone who will say to the bankers, "We will stand behind the Lancashire manufacturer until his goods have been sold in a foreign or overseas market."
I can give, from my own knowledge, the case of a man who, when the slump came in 1920, found his ordinary means of trade cut off. He started a consignment trade, and. sent goods overseas, but, this trade having developed, his bankers said to him, "You are taking great risks; we can only finance you to a certain extent." If be had been willing to adopt the advice of his bankers, his trade would have been kept at a low point, his mills would have been running half time, and those whom he employs would have been out of employment. But he was not going to be put down in this way. He was doing part of his trade through Holland, at Amsterdam. He went over to Amsterdam, opened an office there, and got a Dutch banker to finance him, and ever since the
decline in 1921 the mills of that manufacturer have been kept going full time, and he is financed by a Dutch banker in Amsterdam. I suggest that, if it. is possible for a foreigner to give credit to a Lancashire manufacturer, because he relies upon him, because he knows his integrity and has command of the goods until they are sold, it should surely be possible for our own Government, having established a scheme, to encourage a home manufacturer who is willing to take; the risk himself.

4.0 P.M.

There is just one other point in connection, with the Overseas Trade Department. It is an excellent Department which gives information to manufacturers and traders, and it is a Department which is of particular use to those who use it, but it does not seem to be sufficiently well known to the traders of the country. I have asked the Department to give me the figures showing how many in the cotton trade are connected with what is known as their special register, and out of all the firms connected with the cotton trade there are only 151 on their special register. What does the special register do? For a few guineas a year you get through the Department from all overseas trade commissioners and consuls information as to the particular commodities and markets in which you are interested. If that information is sent with the details necessary, it is of particular use. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Department, I understand, is going to Lancashire next week to urge the need of publicity. I suggest that one of the first things he does is to establish in his own Department a publicity agency which will boast the good things which the Department can do.

Of course, it is impossible for these Consuls and Trade Commissioners to know the details of every trade, and we get information sent to us which is ridiculous in what it contains. It is not the fault of the particular overseas representative. It arises of necessity from his lack of knowledge of particular trades. It would be easy for the Department— and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of this recommendation —to go, say, to the Cotton Manufacturers' Association and ask them to prepare a form which if filled up would give the information that would be necessary. If
those forms were sent out, our Consuls throughout the world would know what information was expected. I have mentioned this matter to one of my hon. Friends who was a Consul in the Far East for over 20 years, and he tells me that if they had had forms of that description it would have been of inestimable value and would have made their work easy for them while they would have felt that the information they were sending home was valuable and could be practically applied. I hope that these two suggestions I have made may be of some help to the Department, and others in developing and expanding our trade.

Sir JOHN PENNEFATHER: I beg to second the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Waddington).
I am going to resist the temptation to travel over the wide ground which he has opened up. I propose to confine myself strictly to one main issue, namely, the connection between Empire trade and the better distribution of man-power between this country and the Dominions. We all know the importance of Dominion trade. We all know, thanks to the preference given to us in those markets, that the Dominions are, per head, our best customers. That perhaps can be best realised by stating that if we take three customers, one in Australia, another in New Zealand, and a third in Canada, they spend with us on the average £29 15s. a year, and that if we take three other customers, one in the United States, another in France, and a third in Italy, they spend with us on the average £l 19s. 6d. a year. Comment upon those figures is needless. Although the Dominions are by far our best customers per head the trouble is that there arc very few heads in the community, and the number grows slowly. I was looking into the figures the other day, and I find that in Australia the average increase of population during the years 1911–13 inclusive was 150,000, but during the years 1923–25 inclusive the increase fell to 130,000. Therefore, in spite of the fact that there is a larger population in Australia at the present time than there used to be, the average rate of increase, so far from increasing proportionately,
is decreasing proportionately. In Canada, the position is still worse. In 1912–13 inclusive the average yearly increase of population was 375,000, but during the two years 1924–25 that increase on the average has been only 141,000.
There, again, we see that there is a slow increase in the population of our best markets. That is not due to any such circumstances as a reduction in the birth-rate, or an increase in the death-rate. In both countries the birth-rate exceeds the death-rate by a satisfactory proportion. The reason the populations of those great markets do not increase as they should is because we do not send them the number of migrants that we ought to send to build them up. The figures on that point are very striking. Our average yearly migration to Australia before the War, in the years 1911–13 inclusive, was 57,000; in the years 1923–25, inclusive, that figure had fallen to 29,000. Our average yearly migration to Canada during 1911–13, inclusive, was roughly 132,000, and in the years 1923–25, inclusive, that average fell to 54,000. I think that is an alarming decrease. How can our trade with these great overseas Dominions expand as we might reasonably hope it to expand if the populations in those countries do not expand.
The gravity of the situation was fully realised as far back as 1921, when at the Conference of Prime Ministers it was agreed that a joint policy should be adopted to secure a better distribution of the white population between this country and the Dominions. It was fully realised again in 1922, when we in this House passed the Empire Settlement Act. But do we all realise what has happened since? The position has gone from bad to worse. The population of Great Britain, since 1922, has increased by over 600,000. Migration to the British Empire overseas generally, if it has not actually decreased as some maintain, has certainly not increased. My authority for making that statement is the Report to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affaire of the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed to consider the effect on migration of schemes of social insurance. I am not going to blame or criticise any person or Department or any Government either in this country or overseas. I am simply stating facts which are indisputable, and facts which will, I think, give rise to a
feeling of dismay in the minds of all thinking people.
The causes for this comparative failure of the Empire Settlement Act and the policy embodied in it are, no doubt, many, and I would say at once that I believe some are entirely beyond the control of the home country. But this fact is clear that, whatever the causes may be, we have not spent on migration anything like the amount of money which this House authorised to be spent under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922. During 1922–23–24 and 1925 we were authorised to spend for purposes of Empire settlement £10,500,000. The actual expenditure during those year3 has been less than £1,500,000. In other words, we have spent during these four years less than the £1,500,000 which we were authorised to spend in the first year of the operation of the Act. There are many other causes. One of them, I submit, is that we have not really grappled with the real problem in regard to migration. That is stated with perfect clarity in this booklet issued, by the Oversea Settlement Department, entitled "Empire Migration and Settlement." On the very first page these words occur—
The problem is to convert a large part of our industrialised population into a rural population engaged in agriculture.
One would have thought that the first step in dealing with that problem was to try in some way to train our industrialised people who were desirous of migrating so that they might become fit to engage in rural occupations. So far practically nothing has been done in that direction. In reply to a question which I asked recently, I was informed that there are at present in this country only two training centres, both of them, I understand, juveniles out of employment, and the total number is 175. We ought to be preparing for migration at least 200,000 people a year, and here we have training establishments for 175. Another obstacle to migration is the severity of the restrictions imposed by the Dominion authorities upon intending migrants. That is a matter beyond the control of the present Government, but I hope it will be seriously and frankly and fully dealt with at the next Imperial Conference. There is no doubt that we have hundreds of thousands of people anxious to migrate and to seize the great opportunities that are offered overseas, and who would do so were it not that the
restrictions imposed by the Dominion authorities are so severe that a very large proportion of them are ruled out.
Another obstacle to migration is that under the much-abused capitalist Industrial system the conditions of great masses of our people have so improved that when they are thinking of migrating they find that if they migrated, they would, or might, lose certain benefits. A number of people who are now either in receipt of or in expectation of some form of pension or benefit is enormous, and those people naturally say, "We know that if we remained in this country we are entitled, either now or in the future, to certain benefits and if we go overseas, while we may come under some Dominion scheme, it will not be as good as that under which we now benefit." Therefore, the proposal is made by Sir Donald Maclean's Committee that persons who are enjoying contributory pensions should be allowed a sum in compensation if they surrender those benefits in order to emigrate. That is a very interesting suggestion. I think it might perhaps be carried further, and I for one am not in the least frightened by the idea that that would entail some additional expense, because any expenditure which we may incur in facilitating emigration will not only be of benefit to the persons concerned, but will be a real economy to this country, not only in the long run, but in the near future. Whatever the obstacles are, and wherever they may lie, to emigration, we ought to make a determined effort to overcome them. I should like to see the spirit that animated the House in 1922 revived. Then we were all enthusiastic about migration. Now it seems to me we are all extremely slack. I hope that spirit will be revived, and that we shall do something big, bold and effective to increase migration from this country up to the pre-War figure of something over 200,000 a year. I urge this, not merely for the benefit of British trade, but also for the advantage of a great many people in this country, particularly young people, who through the density of our population are denied the opportunities which arc offered to them overseas; above all, I urge this in the interests of the Empire as a whole.

Mr. BARNES: I think the Amendment would have served a more practical pur-
pose if the policy of the party opposite had been embodied in it. Everyone agrees as to the necessity of developing Empire trade, and, as a matter of fact, trade wherever you can get it, in view of the conditions of the country, but a general desire, such as is expressed in the Amendment, must, of course, be embodied in a policy. Therefore, in reviewing the development of Empire trade, the sooner we come to grips with the differences that may develop in regard to these policies, the better it will be for the problem we have to consider. The policy that lies behind this Amendment, though it is not expressed in definite terms, is well known to the country. Already the party opposite have had one General Election, in 1923, on some phases of their Empire development policy, and during the last 18 months, using their majority quite legitimately, we have seen the movement for the realisation of that policy expressed in various ways. The necessity for markets to-day, of course, is a commonplace, and I propose to review the situation, first of all, in its general aspect, and finally to give, as far as I can, a contribution of what we have to offer on this side. Before the War, there were certain tendencies in world trade which were disturbing to Great Britain. The War, in the realms of trade as in many other spheres, has accelerated those developments, with the result that need of expanding markets, always an essential feature of British industrial life, has become aggravated because of the general decline in the purchasing power of Europe in particular.
But while these economic problems are the direct result of the War, there have been other developments accelerated by the War—political and social developments. For instance, before the War, the trade union movement and the cooperative movement largely accepted the function of working within the scheme of our capitalist civilisation. There was no majority challenge, as it were, on the part of this organisation to the general policy laid down by the employing interest. But to-day that position has also changed completely and remarkably, and the organised movement of the workers —the trade union movement, the cooperative movement, and the Labour party as its political expression — does not accept the general policy on trade
and industrial and commercial development as laid down by Members opposite. They challenge the very system itself, therefore our attitude to the policy of Empire development must be conditioned by that remarkable growth of working-class opinion since the War. That leads me to make this first point—a very essential point—in the attitude of the House towards the matter, because we cannot overlook the fact that the population of the British Empire is composed of roughly 60,000,000 Britishers and 390,000,000 coloured people. In approaching this problem of Empire development, we shall not be a party in any sense at all to the use of British capital and British power, as represented by State action, in the further exploitation of the, coloured communities of the British Empire either for the British capitalist in the first sense, or, secondly, for the British community in its larger sense.
Having said that, I want to approach the problem now from the standpoint of the economic conditions of the country, which make improving foreign and Dominion markets an essential feature of our future progress. There is no other country in the world which has the same problems that we have to confront, because in this country, whatever our opinions may be as to the topsy-turvy state of British industrial and agricultural life, the fact remains that as the result of 100 years of development, we are dependent more than any other community in the world for our food supplies on overseas. That compels us in return to develop an external export trade in manufactured goods, again to an extent that no other country in the world is compelled to adhere to. This remarkable contradiction, remarkable lack of balance, in the economic structure of Great Britain raises problems that are peculiar to this country as compared with other communities. What is the position? Take our basic foodstuffs. Great Britain is compelled to import roughly 77 per cent. of its wheat and Hour from overseas. Of its meat supplies we import about 60 per cent., butter 80 per cent., cheese 70 per cent and dairy products 50 per cent. That presents a problem which makes necessary an always increasing area of cultivation throughout the world, and it makes of even greater importance the necessity of developing the output of every possible acre of land in our own
country. Even if we make the development, of Commonwealth trade an essential feature, our policy should start from the utilisation of the land of our own country which, though limited in its extent, could nevertheless supply more than it is doing to-day.
But even admitted that there is the necessity for expanding the cultivation of agriculture abroad, it leaves us to the problem how to pay for it. We pay for it to-day in three directions. First, by the export of our manufactured goods, and, secondly, by our overseas investments and shipping. That brings me to a point which is relevant because I want to relate it to the policy of the party opposite. The main consideration of Great Britain, in view of its economic structure, is that we must have in this country an abundant supply of cheap food and raw material. Endanger the quantity of imports and the price of imports and you create a problem of a permanent character which may be more difficult to deal with than the post-War problems which we are now considering.
The next point is the necessity for securing expanding markets for our manufactured goods. I shall not attempt, there is no reason why we on these benches should attempt, to belittle Empire markets. Why should we? There is no difference on this side of the House with any hon. Members whether of the Conservative party or of the Liberal party as to the importance of Empire markets to this country. I want to prove that by recognising the facts of the situation. If we take a period before the War, from 1890 to 1912, what do we find the disturbing factor in world trade so far as this country was concerned? If we take our trade with the United States of America, Germany, France, Russia, Italy, Spain, Holland, Denmark, the Argentine, China and Japan, which covers almost the whole world as far as trade is concerned, our percentage of trade in those markets was steadily declining over that period. It was declining so far as our exports to those markets were concerned, without exception. When we put the figures into special categories, the situation is even more regrettable from the standpoint of this country. The export trade from the United States, taking the period from 1890 to 1912, went up from £176,000,000 to £452,000,000; the export trade of Ger-
many rose in the same period from £166,000,000 to £440,000,000 while the export trade of Great Britain rose from £263,000,000 to £487,000,000. These three nations represent the most industrialised communities in the world, and we find that the export trade of the United States of America and Germany was growing in that period at a much more rapid rate than the export trade of Great Britain.
If we take a survey over a longer period in relation to Empire markets, we find that in the period from 1870 to 1924 the position is much more favourable. We were able to retain in our Empire markets over the longer period over 50 per cent. of the total imports of manufactured goods of India, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. With these facts before us, it is futile to belittle the importance of Empire trade and Empire markets to this country. If we take a survey of broader generalities—I know that figures can always be manipulated; I could dissect the figures which I am quoting in order partially to destroy my own argument—we find that 450,000,000 British subjects in 1924, which more immediately touches the problem with which we are dealing, took from this country £332,000,000 worth of our manufactured exports, an average of 14s. 9d. per head, while; the 1,350,000,000 of foreign peoples tonic £462,000,000 worth of our manufactured exports, an equivalent of 6s. 8d. per head. That proves that on the percentage basis Empire markets are more fruitful for British development than foreign markets. While I admit that, it would be futile and suicidal for this country to overlook the importance of the £462,000,000 worth of trade that we did with foreign countries in 1924. We approach this problem, not from the standpoint of making the British Commonwealth a self-contained community, because that will build up racial hatred and economic prejudice throughout the world, but in its limited and more sensible sphere, because it does present a favourable market which we are legitimately entitled to develop.
For the purpose of clearing the air before I make an attack upon the policy of the party opposite, let me say that there is no contradiction in the international ideals for which we stand and national economic security. We do not contend that it is not within the province of the
British people to secure economic safety for themselves by processes that are legitimate and an economic standard of living for the people of this country, but the international conditions that we lay down are that in gaining national economic security, and in raising the standard of life of the British people, we are not entitled to do it at the expense of other communities throughout the world. The party opposite, at election times or whenever they discuss this problem, presume that they are the real custodians of the British Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The cheers of hon. Members opposite corroborate that statement. Our contention is that the principle of Preference, the relations of inter-Empire trade is not entirely a case of the Dominions handing out a measure of charity to us in the shape of tariffs. The Preferences which Great Britain gives to the Dominions exceed in many respects the advantages we get from the Dominions. In the broad comparisons of trade which I have given, we are still doing the bulk of our export trade with foreign countries. Of the goods that our Dominions export, mainly food products, Great Britain not only takes 50 percent. of the exports of the Dominions but, practically, Great Britain is the only market that the Dominions have for the export of their goods. Of the butter, cheese, fruit and other commodities and wool which they export, practically the whole output comes to Great Britain. Therefore, the problem is not simply one of encouraging or making it possible for the Dominions to export their goods to Great Britain, the real problem is, how we can increase the total output of food in the Dominions and still direct it to this country?
Comparing the measure of Preference given by the Dominions to ourselves and what Great Britain gives to the Dominions, we find that the total value of the Preference given to us by the Dominions is estimated at about £12,000,000. Of this sum over £7,000,000 is represented by the Preference given to this country by Australia. The balance of £5,000,000 is not a great contribution on the part of the rest of the British Empire to help the struggling Mother Country to overcome the difficulties of the post-War period. What are the Preferences that we give to the
Dominions? Apart from the Preferences which we have given in the past, in the long struggle which the building up of the British Empire has represented, I would ask hon. Members to look at the tangible advantages they get from being linked to this country. Under the Colonial Stock Act of 1900, investments in the Dominions are trustee securities. Roughly speaking—these figures are given subject to correction—there is something like £2,000,000,000 of British capital.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: £1,000,000,000.

Mr. BARNES: I said the figures were given subject to correction. If I accept the corrected figure of £1,000,000,000, it will not destroy or belittle my argument. Assuming that on that preferential form of investment the Dominions save 1 per cent., the total saving on the reduced figure of £1,000,000,000 means a direct Preference of £10,000,000 from the mother country to the Dominions. It is true that the British capitalists invest that money to-day, but it was made out of British labour in the first instance. The British Government, which means the British people, have largely subsidised emigration so far. Although the Dominions are adopting a little more generous attitude towards that problem now, we have largely borne the burden in the past. The emigration contribution of Great Britain to the Dominions is not measured entirely by the amount of money that we spend upon that service to the Commonwealth. We incurred as a nation the cost of the education of our man-power in the early days. We incurred the cost of training all these individuals, and that cannot be measured in pounds, shillings and pence. After we have trained them in the educational sense and from the manual training point of view, they take their wealth-producing capacity to the Dominions. The cost of Imperial defence has always been borne in the major part by the people of this country. The subsidising of the postal service and the telegraph service has fallen upon this country, while the use of British consular and trade services are at the disposal of the Dominions. Finally, in recent years the party opposite, not content with these contributions from the mother country to nations that are already becoming in many
respects richer than ourselves, are developing Preferences on sugar, wines and dried fruits.
I am opposed to the policy of a 10 years stabilisation of Preference. I do not, consider that the party opposite have any right to pledge this country to that policy. The Labour party, speaking for over 5,000,000 people, a party which is growing more rapidly in the confidence of the people of this country than any other political party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] You will see that when the result of the East Ham by-election is declared to-night—are pledged to the policy of Empire development and the Government have no right to ignore the Labour party when they are framing their policy for the Empire. If they adopt that policy the inevitable result will be, pledged as we are to the abolition of food taxes, that when we become the Government of this country we shall abolish food taxation and incidentally, without any desire to do it, they will inflict by a policy of that sort serious injury on Dominion trade. The Dominions have imposed tariffs on manufactured goods. The primary object of the Dominion tariff is not to give a preference to Great Britain but to foster Dominion manufactures. Incidentally, after it has served this primary purpose, they are prepared to give a preference to Great Britain.
The policy of Preference on foodstuffs in this country is not to foster home agriculture. We impose food taxes in this country to raise revenue. Therefore, the principle of preference, as applied in this country to stimulate Empire trade, makes inevitable the retention of food taxation; thus you have two contradictory principles operating. The Dominions get the benefit both ways. They improve their own manufactures while giving a partial preference to Great Britain. We cannot limit ourselves to this system of Preference in the shape of food taxation until we defend British agriculture on the same plane by the imposition of taxes on wheat, meat, butter and commodities of that sort. That is where the party opposite arc trying to lead the people of this country under the guise of their Empire trade policy. In recent years they have thrown out a sop to British agriculture in the shape of remissions of taxation and a few thousand pounds more on rural
road development, but the party opposite know that if this policy is continued it will lead, and must lead to the imposition of duties on meat, wheat, butter and other commodities. That is the inevitable development of this policy, and that is why we are opposed to it.
I turn now to a phase of Empire policy which is essential both to the Dominions and to this country, that is successful agriculture. Wherever we have successful agriculture in the world to-day it is upon a co-operative basis; the collaboration of the State with co-operative organisations. We see it in Denmark. The Dominions are turning more and more in that direction. In submitting our policy as against the fiscal plan of the Government, we stand more and more for the action of the State and of working-class organisations, like the co-operative organisations, as a means of developing the resources of the Empire and the trade between one part of the Empire and another, so that the benefits of this improved trade will not go to a comparatively small group of people in this country or in the Dominions but will ultimately go to the producers and the consumers. The reason why America and Germany are forging ahead is because they have applied themselves to organisation more than we have in this country. When we look at coal, electricity, transport, and other great vital services, we sec that the main reason for their failure to-day is because Great Britain has lagged behind other countries in applying up-to-date methods and more particularly the co-operative plan.
It is argued that if the State took action with regard to Empire trade there would be certain disastrous results. As a matter of fact, the wheat imports of this country, the meat imports of this country and the import of all provisions into this country, are to-day largely controlled by half a dozen or eight firms. The importation of the foodstuffs required by the British people is rapidly getting into the grip of a series of private trusts, and if six or eight groups of private importers can import the bulk of the foodstuffs of Great Britain without any disastrous results in the international or the economic sphere, is it not possible for the State, acting through the co-operative organisations, to perform that task? Assuming this process goes on, and we get one or two
private trusts handling the meat or wheat supply, will the economic results be any different from what has happened to oil in Mosul, or rubber throughout the world? The inevitable tendency of the nations of the world to-day is to control their own economic resources; and it will be better for the peace of the world ultimately. There will be problems certainly, but it is far better for these problems to come to the surface so that the people of the country may be able to see them and understand them and grapple with them rather than there should be these vested interests behind the scenes.
Therefore, the plan we advance as an alternative to the fiscal plan of the Government is a collaboration of Governments, the British Government and the Dominion Governments, each representing their various communities, each working through the co-operative organisations which their peoples have built up, to insure that the advantages of this new wealth created in the twentieth century is enjoyed by the masses of the people. It is a practical proposition. In 1924 the Co-operative Wholesale Society of this country financed one of the largest wheat deals that has ever taken place in the Empire. If we can finance, as we have through working-class organisations, a deal which involves the whole output of one of the Australian States, why should not we finance the output of the whole of the Australian States? That is the policy for which we stand. The policy of this country in the nineteenth century was a policy whereby the power of Great Britain and the people of Great Britain was used largely for the purpose of exploiting the home community, and the same policy has operated largely throughout the Empire. We cannot let that be repeated in the twentieth century. That took place before the workers of the country had their organisation which could resist such a policy, but as far as we are concerned, and with the knowledge we have of what happened in the nineteenth century, we are not going to let that policy be repeated.
We see the results of a hundred years of private enterprise. Where are the great basic industries of this country to-day? They have been sucked dry and thrown away like a sucked orange. The
coal position, which we are considering now, is the result of your policy during the last century, the policy which is embodied in this Amendment. We are not going to allow the raw materials and the wealth of the Dominions to be subjected to the same process in the twentieth century. You have a different, situation. You have a party on this side of the House which represents 5,000,000 people of this country, and in the Dominions you have a Labour party which is growing most rapidly in areas like Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Our alternative, which we want to make quite clear to this House, to the country and particularly to the Dominions is this: We do not accept the policy of the party opposite. We do not consider ourselves bound by this 10 years' stabilisation period. We do not look to the fiscal plan of the Government to improve Imperial trade. We look to the people of this country, operating through the Government, controlling its own resources, the Dominions controlling their own resources, leading not to a complete economic hegemony but to the development of a world democracy which will make for peace and not for exploitation. We cannot oppose this Amendment because of its pious character, but we take this opportunity of making our position quite clear, so that it will not be said in the future that we in any way supported the policy of the party opposite.

Mr. PILCHER: The last speaker began and finished on the note of exploitation, and I do not propose to follow him into all the ramifications of his argument. I want to say a word or two in regard to a particular market in which every qualified observer agrees there has been no exploitation whatever either on this side or the other. It is the greatest British market in the world and one in which the connection between the two countries is a record of beneficent economic influences from the first moment trade began between the two countries. I refer to India, and I want to draw the attention of hon. Members to some rather grave elements in the trade with that vast area. Let me draw attention first to the immensity of the Indian market. It absorbs one-eighth of our total exports, and there is something like one-fifth or one-sixth of the entire population of the world living
there under the British flag. It is a market which we have developed to a considerable extent in the past, but it still admits of almost fabulous development if we treat it in the right way. The grave fact, to which I want to draw attention, is the decline in the percentage of total imports for which this country is responsible. Since 1914 our percentage of India's total imports has fallen from 64 to 54 per cent. The volume of that trade is still enormous. It was reported last year, as I have said, at roughly £100,000,000, and that very fact explains why the decline that is going on steadily is hardly realised in this country. The facts are generally stated in the form of percentages and, stated in that form, the fluctuations are so tiny that the actual decline does not appear on the surface.

5.0 P.M.

The most marked decline in actual volume is in the Indian consumption of cotton piece goods. Between 1914 and 1925, although values may have been steady at about £40,000,000 sterling, the actual decline in volume is enormous. The decline in English exports of cotton piece goods to India is from 3,000,000,000 yards in 1913 to some 1,400,000,000 yards, in the last completed year of our trade. What that means to this country, when you take into account the important position which Lancashire plays in the prosperity of the United Kingdom, is apparent. If you range over a number of the most important of Indian imports you will find not so great a decline, but you will find everywhere a steady trend of the trade into foreign channels, or at least into channels other than our own, where such channels can possibly be found. The contrast can be seen by comparing the figures of India's exportation, as it has expanded, with the figures of her importation. The general condition of India is one of tremendous prosperity, which has been very greatly enhanced as the result of her experiences in the War. In the field of Indian exportation you get a growth from £166,000,000 sterling in 1914 to £271,000,000 in 1925. That is an expansion of 65 per cent. It is quite in harmony with the trend of India's economic progress for the five or six decades before the War.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Would the hon. Member say that a country where the, people are able to purchase only £4 worth
of goods per head per annum is a prosperous country?

Mr. PILCHER: I propose to deal with that question in a moment if my hon. Friend will give me an opportunity. What I was trying to draw attention to was the contrast between the growth of India's exportation, which is an indication of the general prosperity of a large portion of her population, and the very small growth of her importation. There we have progress in exportation such as we had been led to expect from all the intensive work that had been done before the War. The figures for importation are £128,000,000 in 1913–14, and £151,000,000 in 1925, or an increase of only 20 per cent. If allowance is made for the depreciated purchasing power of currency, there is practically no increase in India's absorption of foreign goods. The reason for the decline in absorption is to be sought in the higher cost of production in the producing market, the higher selling prices in India, and the inability of the Indian population, with an average income of some 60 rupees— or £4, as my hon. Friend puts it—a year, to pay anything but the very lowest prices available.
Before the War the share of the United Kingdom in the importation of India was some 64 per cent. The underlying reason for the present comparative stagnation of the importation figures is to be found in the high cost of production in this country and the relatively high prices of goods sent out from this country; and the effect in the India buying market is that India is hard at work in half a dozen spheres now, doing her utmost to find alternative markets where she can buy these goods at prices which her ryots can pay. We have not yet seen in India the result which will ultimately accrue from high-producing costs here and high prices of British goods, but I would refer the Minister to the excellent reports of Mr. Ainscough, of his own Department. Mr. Ainscough's anxieties, not merely in the sphere of cotton piece goods, but in railway purchases, general iron and steel absorption, and so on, runs over almost the entire gamut of Indian purchases.
I want to go a little further than merely draw attention to what is going on. I believe that the danger implied is very much greater than is realised. As a
result of our long connection with the country and the beneficent work that we have done there, we have in India a tremendous quasi-natural preference. The Indian wants to buy British goods. It is not his desire, generally speaking, except in the case of an infinitely tiny political section of the community, to seek other markets than our own for the good old standard lines, if he can possibly get them from us. But certainly as regards piece goods he simply cannot pay present prices. We heard just now of the exploitation of one side and the other. The increase in the cost of production in Lancashire and the increased selling cost of Lancashire piece goods have worked infinite hardship to the mass of the people in India, to whom Labour Members in this House are so sympathetic. I have had people calling on me at my office in Calcutta to tell me stories of the appalling conditions in which their womenfolk are often obliged to exist on account of the increased cost.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Would the hon. Member suggest that, in order to overcome that difficulty, the Lancashire weavers and spinners should be given less in wages, or that the Indian ryot be given more in wages?

Mr. PILCHER: I will develop that subject if I have the time to do so. The Lancashire worker from his own point of view is engaged in what he describes as stabilising a new and higher standard of comfort. [Interruption.] Is it not his object at all costs to maintain the higher standard which the War brought in? I am well aware of the position in Lancashire. That is the general aim of the workers in this country—to stabilise their standard of living on a higher level than before the War. I want to make it perfectly clear that the oversea consumer in countries such as India is suffering inordinately from that process. The producer in this country is suffering acutely and the consumer in India is suffering acutely. In Lancashire you are getting very prolonged periods of short-time working. The American section of the magnificent Lancashire trade is now contemplating a whole week of unemployment in order to get rid of accumulated stocks. The simple cause is that the costs of production are too high for the India
ryot to pay. The worker in Lancashire is suffering from incessant short time.
I want to suggest one or two lines on which I think that something might be done by our great Departments to get into touch with the Indian market, and, in some measure at least, get the two countries more nearly into reciprocal connection. There are several very big openings in India which could be utilised, if only the right methods were adopted. I have drawn attention before to the railway position. This matter is not so remote from the question of consumption and of the average income in India as it may appear to be. On the contrary, there is a very vital connection between the two. India now—it has been true for a long time past—is starved of the railway communications that the poorest of her population so urgently need if their standard of living and income are to reach the figure that they ought to reach. In the last 15 years we have had a considerable series of reports on the railway position in India. We had Sir Thomas Robertson's report in 1908; then the McKay Commission's report in 1911; and since the War we have had the invaluable report of the Acworth Committee. With one consent all those expert bodies have recommended a much greater rate of increase of railway mileage than has been possible for some time past. The McKay Committee two or three years before the War was anxious to see an annual expenditure of £12,500,000 sterling of pre-War money on Indian railways. The Acworth Committee since the War agreed—I have here some eloquent passages from the report, drawing attention again to the inadequacy of the railway communications—and suggested that a move should be made as soon as possible.
The result of all that was that we had a five years programme started, in each of which years £20,000,000 sterling was to have been spent merely on rehabilitating the Indian lines which had suffered so terribly as the result of the War. In point of fact, there has not been more than one year in which that sum has been spent. There have been very good reasons for it. They have not even spent in India the £20,000,000 recommended and provided for, apart from the general Budget, for rehabilitation work. Now they have started at last. They are just
getting to their constructional programme. We have a programme which shows an average expenditure of £6,000,000 sterling per year for the next six years, until 1932. That is all in the right direction. But considering the development which India has undergone, as shown by the figures of her export trade during the years since Lord Inchcape sat as Chairman of the Railway Commission, and considering all that has happened, and the progress that should have been made, it is pitiable to think that even now they are to spend only £6,000,000 sterling of post-War money on a railway programme in a country which needed 12½ million sterling of good pre-War gold to be spent to get that country into anything like the condition that the prosperity of the country demanded.
I am aware of the work that the Railway Board in India is doing. Everyone is straining his utmost; everything is being done that can be done there. It is not a country in which you can get a sudden expansion of a railway programme. There is the question of personnel, the improving of the yards, and so on, and that is very slow work. I would refer the Minister to the report of the debate on the railway programme in the proceedings of the Indian Imperial Assembly. The Indian political leaders, even in that Assembly, make constant complaints that the rehabilitation work and constructional work are not going on nearly fast enough. May I read this one small extract from the Acworth Committee's Report:
How much the economic development of India is suffering not from hesitation to provide for the future—no attempt has been made to do this—but from the utter failure to keep abreast of the day-to-day requirements of the traffic actually in sight and clamouring to be carried, it is impossible to say. Had the Government thought fit to borrow money, even at a rate considerably higher than the not rate of the return that the railways could earn on it, we believe this action would have been abundantly justified, but, in fact, the Indian Government never needed for many years previous to 1914 to face this position. For the past 45 years, the net earnings on the capital invested in Indian railways has never sunk below 4 per cent., and for the last 25 years it has only in three years sunk below 5 per cent., and this result was obtained though a substantial sum had been charged against revenue …. and in spite of the fact that, a not inconsiderable part of the total mileage had been built, not on commercial but strategic grounds.
Since that was written, there have been two years when the railways in India did not pay. Now, the railways have a separate budget, thanks to the interest and statesmanship of Lord Reading, who pushed through that great reform, and they have also a magnificent organisation in the new railway board. The money allocated to them they can spend, and it is not appropriated for general State purposes. I submit that there is a chance of creating a real connection between the needs of the great iron and steel and railway manufacturing areas in this country, and the needs of India as expressed in passages such as that which I have just read, and as expressed also by popular leaders in the debates in the Assembly only three or four weeks ago.
That is the first patent opportunity to which I would draw attention. I do not believe that advantage can be taken of it unless the British Treasury, the Board of Trade and the India Office co-operate directly with the Indian Government and the Indian Railways Board. For effective action to be taken the water-tight compartments separating our Departments from one another and these Departments from the Indian Government—these are difficulties which would have to be removed. There will have to be closer co-ordination if we are to get full advantage of the possibilities of actual expansion in these markets There was a proposal in the last Imperial Economic Conference that £5,000,000 sterling—not a very large sum—should be appropriated to Empire Governments and I think the borrowing Governments were to be relieved of three-fifths of the interest charges or at any rate some part of the interest charges, in the interests both of the Overseas Dominions and our home producers. Surely the Indian railway position is an example par excellence of what could be done by co-operation on these lines. The money so allocated by the British Exchequer or the assistance given in the London loan market, would involve no risk whatever. There is the most magnificent security to be found in the world. The railways can not run away. The Indian population want this progress to go on more rapidly than it is going on at present, and the popular Indian Assembly is at one with them in that demand. It may be that
lack of strenuous co-operation between all the parties concerned, and, possibly, an insufficient realisation in India of the tragic position of our heavy goods markets is preventing some really constructive scheme of this sort from being promulgated and put into operation.
If the House will bear with me I should like to refer to one other great opportunity which has a direct relationship with the suggestion from the Labour Benches that the prosperity of the population of India is assumed rather than real. There is the pathetic estimate— as it sounds to English ears—of the average income of the Indian inhabitant. I should like to say that this estimate is very theoretical and uncertain. Various estimates have been made. In Lord Curzon's time it was estimated that the average income of the population was 30 rupees a head. A very excellent estimate was made in the Madras Presidency by an expert economist, who, for that Presidency at any rate, estimated the average income at 60 rupees. For English consumption these figures are converted into sterling at the current rate, and we are now told that the Indian ryot possesses an average income, taking that vast population as a whole, of £4 per annum. It is exceedingly misleading to state it in those terms, but the subject would involve a too lengthy discussion at this stage. At any rate, no one denies that the standard of comfort among the vast population of 320,000,000 in India is pathetically low. It is my contention, and the contention of everybody who has gone to that country with an impartial mind, that the effect of the British connection—its law and order, its roads, railways, and security—on the purchasing power of most of the inhabitants has been wholly good. That purchasing power has been rising steadily. In my 10 or 12 years in Calcutta the daily rate of the coolie in the port has risen from four annas to 12 annas. In terms of English currency, of course, that is from 4d. to 1s., but I do not accept that translation at all. It is not a conversion corresponding with reality. The coolie in the Calcutta docks to-day, at 12 annas a day, is remarkably well-off compared with anything which his ancestors ever enjoyed.
The point to which I wish to come is that if a really strong interest were taken in the matter here and in our Departments, something might be done to improve the position in the producing areas of this country which are suffering from unemployment, and at the same time to improve the condition of the agriculturist in India. There has been in the last quarter of a century a wonderful development of co-operative societies all over that vast country. There are now something like 30,000 or 40,000 societies, mainly credit societies. They have never gone very far beyond the primary stage which you had at the beginning of the great co-operative society movement in Germany. What we desperately want is a re-examination of the position of that movement in India, with a view to utilising it for the improvement of the agricultural equipment of India, and the whole system of cultivation there. We want a re-examination of the present position of the co-operative societies— of the movement which has developed there since 1901—in order to see, again, whether credit cannot be utilised in that direction and whether some of the ryot's most pressing needs cannot be met. I have here some figures referring to the potentialities of the agricultural position in India, and I think they are very striking. They give some conception of what might accrue to our markets at home if greater prosperity could be brought to the Indian cultivator. Here again you have a complete and perfect interlocking between Indian interests and British interests, if you can only create the reciprocity and draw them together.
The acreage of that country is 200,000,000 acres, and the total, value produced, even now with the inefficient instruments which arc used, represents £600,000,000. The agriculturists employ 150,000,000 bovine cattle, and it is calculated that 25,000,000 of these are useless. The majority of them are used, of course, for purposes of traction, and for grinding and pumping and work of that kind. There is a real possibility in the approximate future of substituting mechanical methods of agriculture for these ancient and, indeed, almost antediluvian methods which have been going on for a millennium. The direction in which assistance can best be given to the Indian agricul-
turist is by popularising the light metal plough. Canadian and American exports are actually at work now finding what the ryot wants and sending these ploughs into the country. Something ought to be done from this end to find out what is the ideal instrument required, and to give some standard specification to manufacturers in this country. Another direction in which a great deal might be done is in regard to the use of the oil engine. It is estimated that something like 500,000 of these engines are wanted in India, and would be absorbed by that country in a reasonable time. In 1923–24 it actually absorbed 2,920, and they cost £600,000; and the numbers have gone up in a single year to 3,670. I suggest in the whole field of agricultural India there are possibilities of development; that there is a case for examination and, at least, a probability that something could be done to bring grist to the mills of our manufacturers and their employers here, while promoting the trade and prosperity of India.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) has gone out of the House, as I should like to congratulate him on his very forcible speech. May I also be allowed to congratulate the last speaker on the concluding portion of his speech concerning the need for modern machinery and agricultural Implements in India. As regards the first part of the hon. Member's speech, I do not quite know at what he was driving, unless he was demanding a reduction in the standard of the Lancashire worker simply on the ground that the standard of the poor Indian is so low. However, in a discussion of this sort it is better to avoid party and controversial questions. The only sentence I will use, which may possibly be regarded as of a controversial nature, is that I claim to speak for a party which, if it does not number 5,000,000 votes, at least numbers 3,000,000 votes in this country, and is the party without which we would not have an Empire at all today. We saved South Africa and Canada, and this country would not have lost the North American Colonies but for the party opposite. That is the answer to the question which was raised earlier in this Debate. The party opposite if they have not lost Ireland have very nearly done so. However, I do not
want to be controversial, but I think what I have said will be accepted by all Students of history.

Mr. JOHNSTON: What about Scotland?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the party opposite had had their way, we would have lost Scotland. I desire to make a constructive suggestion which I believe will do much to help Imperial trade. It is that there should be no more waste of time in developing air communications throughout the Empire. There is no technical difficulty whatever in the way of running a regular aeroplane mails' service to Sydney, bringing Sydney within 10 days of London, flying by day alone, and within five days flying by day and by night. The chief of the Civil Aviation Department, 18 months ago, did a flight to India. Nothing has been done in the meantime, but he reported at the time that from England to Rangoon, with the exception of the Taurus and Lebanon Mountains, the route presented extremely favourable conditions for flying even in bad weather. That flight was done with one machine and was extremely successful. At long last the Government are starting an air mail service from Cairo to Bagdad, and on to Karachi—which we ought to have done three or four years ago.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: They are not going on to Karachi.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Eventually they are going to Karachi. They are beginning at long last. The importance of this matter is not so much from the point of view of passengers, though that is important enough, and it is not even from the point of view of carrying ordinary mails, though that is also important. The greatest financial advantage when you cover long distances such as we have in the Empire, and which, in a way, are an obstacle to Imperial trade, is in carrying documents bearing interest, by which I mean cheques, acceptances, bills, etc., and also in some cases getting your bills of lading out well ahead of the steamer, instead of them, as at the present time, sometimes arriving after the steamer. It is an easy calculation to see what you would save. £1,000,000 worth of documents bearing interest at 5 per cent. accumulates interest at the rate of £137
a day. By sending those documents by steamer, it takes 42 days to Sydney, and you could get them there in 10 days flying by day, or in five days, flying day and night, and make an enormous saving in interest, which might make all the difference between getting a business or bringing off a contract and losing it. I am speaking not from theory, but from a practical experience of America, where for three years a regular air mail service has been in operation from New York to San Francisco, and for the last 18 months it has been flying by day and night. It goes twice in 24 hours, and competes against an excellent railway service. There is only a few hours' advantage with the air mail; nevertheless, it pays its way handsomely by the saving on business documents carrying interest.
I repeat that there are no technical difficulties in the way of flying to-day from Croydon to Sydney, or from Croydon to Rangoon, by way of India, or from Croydon to South Africa. We have got to get out of our heads, however, two fallacies, and may I particularly draw the attention of the hon. Baronet the Under-Secretary of State for Air to this particular point? The first fallacy to get rid of is that of the spectacular long distance flight. That is unnecessary in this case. The great exploits of Englishmen, Italians, Portuguese and Americans in making long world flights are excellent from the point of view of human endurance, and courage, and endeavour, and progress, but from the point of view of the prosaic air mail, for it is prosaic to-day, what you have to visualise is a series of short hops of 200 or 300 miles each. That is the first fallacy to get rid of, and it is a question of aerodromes, spare parts and tanks, and we ought to have been working at this question since the War ended. The second fallacy is that an Empire air route cannot, unfortunately, be an all red route. It has got to link up for a part of the flight with the regular air services in Europe, and later on, in the case of the Australian Air Service, with the Dutch Air Service in the Dutch East Indies. You cannot get away from that fact.
There are no difficulties to-day at all in flying if you once get an agreement with the European nations concerned,
either from London to Marseilles, and then on to Corsica, Rome, Corfu, Alexandria, and then joining up with the route that we are going to use from Egypt to India, or else, alternatively, going by the ordinary well beaten routes to Vienna, which exist, which are being flown every day, and which are used by business men in Europe, and then on to Belgrade, Constantinople, and through Turkey on to Bagdad—the route that was flown on the alternative journey by Sir Sefton Brancker. There is no difficulty in that except the difficulty, perhaps, of coming to an arrangement with the nations over whose territory you want to fly, but if we made the air mail service open to them, I believe we should have no difficulty there at all, and the more this air mail service tapped the countries through which it passed, the more useful it would be to our trade and to Dominion trade, the more it would pay, and the less opposition there would be. Again, the greater part of the route would be flown by British machines and British pilots. With regard to South Africa, the mail service is a little better, but the advantage of a regular bi-weekly air mail service from Alexandria to Cairo, to Nairobi, to Johannesburg, and to Cape Town would be immense. It would have a great effect upon our prestige, and it would help trade immensely.
Now I come to the next great advantage to trade. I have already dealt with the saving of interest on interest bearing documents and cheques, and now I would point to the advantage of getting valuable samples, engineering blue prints, contracts, and things of that sort more rapidly by this means. I have some small experience of trade in the Indian export trade, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that, if you ask any Indian merchant of old standing, he will tell you that the great need to-day is of a quickening of the mails to India for business purposes. Passengers are not quite so important, but samples could be carried, and remember that the aeroplane is for all practical purposes becoming reliable. On Sunday of this week, when the cross-channel steamers were held up by a gale, the civil aeroplanes carried passengers and mails to Paris, while the cross-channel steamers were sheltering in harbour and unable to
go to sea; and to-day, with your three-engined aeroplanes, you can practically rule out accidents altogether.
This is not altogether a matter for the Imperial Conference. The Government reply will be: "Oh, we are going to have an Imperial Conference, and all these matters will be discussed there." We need not wait for that Imperial Conference. We ought to make our preparations beforehand. We ought to have had communications over the last few years. I do not blame the present Administration only. All our Governments have been extremely lax, unprogressive, and unimaginative in this matter, and we ought to have had the whole matter dratted out long before this Imperial Conference. The Imperial Conference will have a very crowded agenda, and this is not only a matter for the British Empire; it is a matter of arrangement with the countries over which such an air mail will have to fly, and it will be reckoned in the future an extraordinary fact that when we could have done it, technically, for four or five years, we have not to-day got a regular bi-weekly service between London and Sydney, London and India, London and Burma, and London and Cape Colony.
As to costs, it has been reckoned that a weekly air service each way to Sydney could be flown for £300,000. That is extraordinarily little, and I believe it would pay for itself handsomely. The actual flying costs of the companies that run the shorter distances in Europe are only 3s. per ton mile, but allowing 5s. per ton mile, that would come out to only £300,000. For every half ton of useful load, according to the Post Office figures, you can carry 39,000 letters, and allowing 3s. per mile, which is the European cost, the actuarial cost to-day, the 12,000 miles to Sydney would only be £1,800, which works out at only about 1s. per letter. We are really suffering from bad mail communication with the Antipodes at the present time. San Francisco is only about a fortnight to-day from New Zealand by fast streamer, and we are not utilising the Panama Canal as we could do by fast mail steamer. The mails to New Zealand are extremely unsatisfactory, and very often steamers arrive before their bills of lading which have been sent by mail. There are, it is true, mails to New Zealand, one fortnight by Vancouver and one fortnight by
San Francisco, which is not nearly enough, and we ought to have a weekly mail service at least.
That is on the main question of inter-Imperial mails, but the step forward which we could make in this respect, to prevent this gravitation towards the American markets, in order to get to Australia and New Zealand is by the proper use of this great invention of the aeroplane, which I believe will do more for civilisation and progress than any other invention of the century. As for the airship, it would be well and good if that could be utilised, but we are only building two airships, and there will not be enough of them, doubtless, for years to come. Then the airships must have great revolving sheds and big ground staffs, while an aeroplane can land on any convenient open space and can be housed in a tent, and the cost is much less, therefore. I am not hostile to airships, but you can make an immediate start by means of the aeroplane, and I commend that to the President of the Board of Trade, the Postmaster-General, the Air Minister, and the whole of this House, and I hope that I shall be supported, quite apart from party questions. The cost is negligible, the technical difficulties are nil, and perhaps this point will appeal to hon. Members opposite, that you will build up a great reserve of pilots used to long-distance flying, who would be invaluable in case this country was threatened again, and, incidentally, a great many valuable long-distance aeroplanes as well. I put, this forward, however, as a means of helping Imperial trade and binding the Empire together, and I believe there is no measure which could be taken at such a low cost to do more in this direction. It is for this reason that I confine my remarks to this particular phase of inter-Empire trade.

Dr. WATTS: I think the House and the Empire generally owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Waddington) for bringing forward this Amendment to-day. The hon. Member who spoke on the Socialist benches a short time ago did not appear to like the Amendment, for he devoted the greater portion of his speech to endeavouring to belittle the Empire and to minimise the advantages to this country of Empire development. He also gave a dissertation on internationalism, which, in his case, as far as
I could judge, seemed to indicate that he has a most tender regard for every country but his own. There is no doubt that for a considerable time our foreign trade has been declining, and it is equally true that our Imperial trade has been slowly and steadily increasing, and, in my opinion, the future prosperity of the trade of this country, and particularly of the cotton trade of Lancashire, is bound up with the growth and development of Empire trade. I know there are many means of helping Empire trade. The Government themselves could do a good deal, and it cannot be said that this Government have not done more than any previous Government for some considerable time in this connection The system of preferences which were granted some little time ago has been of incalculable benefit to the wine trade, the tobacco trade, and the sugar trade of South Africa and Australia.
By loans you can also do a great deal. The loan of £10,000,000 to East Africa to build railways would be of great advantage because it would enable the cotton which can be produced there to be marketed. They can produce cotton in East Africa and in South Africa equal to the best American cotton, but the means of transport are so limited at present that they can grow more cotton than they can get down to the coast, and by granting this loan of £10,000,000 to East Africa the Government have done remarkably well. In addition, they have done a great: deal by having made a grant for the purpose of assisting the marketing of Empire goods. But altogether apart from what the Government can do, a good deal can still be done by the manufacturer and the producer. If the manufacturer in this country would only adapt his goods to the requirements of the country in which he wishes to sell them, he would at once increase his trade. I was, a short time ago, in Durban, Natal, and I wanted to buy a hat. My hat having been damaged by sea water, I felt that I must have a new one. I went into a shop in Durban, but I was unable to buy a decent English hat. Eventually I had to buy an American hat at a very big price. When I returned to England, I went into a neighbouring constituency which has the largest hat-manufacturing industry in this country. I there showed the hat to some
of my manufacturing friends. They said it was an excellent hat, but that they could produce it, roughly speaking, for two-thirds of the price I had to pay. Unfortunately, the only English hat I could buy was not suitable to the climate of the place.
The same thing applies to motor cars. The last time I was in South Africa, two years ago, it was very unusual to see an English motor car. The American motor cars seemed to dominate the situation. I was shocked to see it, because motor cars are manufactured in my constituency. I made inquiries, and I found out again that it was the British manufacturer who was at fault, because I was told by the buyers that the representatives of the British motor-car firms went over there year by year, and although the people over there recognised the value and workmanship of their cars, unfortunately the British firms did not supply cars adapted to their roads. The English representatives show their models and adopt a take-it-or-leave-it attitude, and in many cases the Colonial buyer leaves it. So that it is not altogether a matter for the Government, but a matter for the manufacturer in this country to adapt his article to the particular requirements of the country in which he wishes to sell it. If we did that, I am sure, instead of their being nine out of 10 cars in the whole of South Africa of American manufacture, we should see a very large number of English cars, and so reduce very considerably the unemployment at the present moment in certain towns of this country.
There is another point which has often occurred to me. We cannot expect the Dominions to trade with us unless we trade with the Dominions, and it is up to us to spend every copper we can in purchasing Dominion goods. I, personally, smoke very fine South African tobacco, and drink nothing but South African wine. I believe that the fact that in the present Budget the Preference is to be stabilised for the next 10 years will enable the growers to know where they are, and I look forward to the time, not long ahead, when the South African wine industry will be one of the biggest industries in South Africa. There is another point. Thousands of our people leave this country every
year for the south of France, North Africa, or somewhere else on the Mediterranean, in search of the sun. Occasionally they find it, but, frequently, they do not find it at all. In many cases time is no object, and I would say to those in that position, why do they not put 11 days' on their travelling time; and spend their holiday in the Cape Peninsular, where in the winter months they are sure of the most gorgeous weather, the most beautiful sunshine to be got in the world. For the extra 11 days' journey, they would get the most enjoyable voyage possible. If a large number of people who now go to the south of France spent the money in the South African Peninsular, it would contribute very much to the prosperity of that country.
A matter which has not been mentioned, but which would do more than anything to encourage Empire trade, is a system of Free Trade within the Empire— a system of Free Trade with what I might call the United States of the British Empire. Even those who have little interest in Free Trade generally, would agree as to Free Trade in the British Empire. Eventually we might realise the dream of those great Empire-builders who have gone before, of a great self-contained people of 450,000,000, trading freely one with another, with a strict ringed fence round, who would never go outside that fence, or certainly not for anything which could be produced in some quarter or other of the greatest Empire that the world has ever seen.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am sorry the hon. Member who has just addressed the House began his very interesting speech by a rather curious misrepresentation of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Ham (Mr. Barnes). If there was anything my hon. Friend did not say, it was that he belittled in any way the importance of trade within the Empire. Indeed, he spent a considerable portion of his time in putting forward our method by which we would develop Empire trade, and I hardly expected that an hon. Member, who, presumably, was in his place during the time my hon. Friend spoke, could have made such a curious misrepresentation of his speech. My hon. Friend declared that, in our judgment, the
method of increasing Empire trade was not by taxation of food, a policy which the industrial population of this country will never stand, but that our method would be along the line of State purchase of the exportable Dominion surplus of the primary products, a proposal, indeed, which two years ago had the assent of the present Prime Minister himself. If the present Prime Minister considered it good enough to propose, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply on behalf of the Government to-night should give us his view upon that very important proposal, and not, as in the past, simply get out of it by evading it. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Waddington), who, I am sorry is not in his place, because I intended to offer an observation or two upon his references to India, said at the beginning of his speech that India was extraordinarily prosperous. I interjected a question as to how that could be said of a country with 318,000,000 people, and an average annual purchasing power of £4 per head, a country where an influenza epidemic comes along and 12,000,000 of the people perish, because their bodies are unable to resist the attacks of the disease. To describe a situation in a sub-continent, where the people are unable to buy clothes, boots, furniture, or food, where they literally die of starvation every year in some portion of the country or other, as prosperity, seems to me to be a misuse of the English language.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: My hon. Friend will admit the enormous improvement in this respect under British rule.

Mr. JOHNSTON: God knows! What can the hon. and gallant Gentleman find to boast about in a situation where, in the year of grace 1925, the purchasing power of 318,000,000 people, after centuries of British rule, is £4 per head per annum? If one-fifth of the human race under our control is unable to buy few of our goods, it is surely vital that we should set about a policy of increasing their purchasing power— not a policy, such as was suggested on the Conservative benches this afternoon, of cheapening Lancashire goods, in order to accommodate Lancashire prices to the present purchasing power in India. That means that Lancashire has got to get down to the coolie level, in order to get into the Indian
markets, and it is obvious to the meanest infant who interests himself in economics, that if you reduce Lancashire's purchasing power to a position in which it can get into the Indian markets, then you have lost the purchasing power in the home market, because Lancashire then ceases to be able to buy cotton goods at all, and the last state of affairs is worse than the first. I suggest that it is trifling with the matter to come at this time of day with the proposal that Lancashire should get down to the level of the Indian coolie. I do not intend to say more about India, except that every industry in this country ought to be vitally interested in the situation in India. Coal mines are being developed in India by British capital and by Indian capital. The wages paid are 8s. 6d. per week to a man and his wife.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): At least that is better than the £4 a year.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. JOHNSTON: As a matter of fact, the coal miners' wages are higher than the others. One of the coal masters paying 8s. 6d. a week for man and wife is Lord Inchcape, whose friends get up and make speeches demanding that the British colliery shall get down to the level of the Indian colliery, in order to compete in the neutral markets of the world. It is the same in many of our other vital industries. It ought to be our united effort to raise the purchasing power of our customers, and not proceed with a policy of depressing it. The party opposite proclaim themselves to be the great friends of Empire— especially at electioneering times. Let us see what they are doing for the Empire. We talk about people from all over the world coming to London, and of the Colonies coming here. They are turned away. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Yes, they are turned away. Australia has to go to America for her loans. They are driven away from here, while at the same time Czechoslovakia can get money. Austria can get money here— at 8 per cent! Germany can get money here. Loans are floated upon the London money market for practically every country but our own. The party opposite are in power. They have encouraged this, or at all events have winked at it. They profit by it.
[An HON. MEMBER:" No!"] Oh, yes, they profit by it. The Government yesterday issued a White Paper dealing with the Trade Facilities Act— No. 61. If I cannot make an impression upon the Government Benches perhaps I may be able to do so on hon. Members opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is impossible!"] Oh no, it is not impossible. Listen to this:
The guarantee of a loan of £2,000,000 for a Greek electricity scheme "—
Mark that!
reported in Parliamentary Paper No. 24, of 16th February, 1925"—
Listen to what this says:
will be given to the Syndicat d' Etrules etd' Entreprises.
The actual work given to the French and British capital is employed, and the British Government are guaranteeing it. What has the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite to say about that?

Sir H. CROFT: It is a very great mistake, if it is not British machinery.

Mr. JOHNSTON: It is worse than a mistake, it is a crime; it is sheer robbery of the British nation. It is taking away credit which ought to be used for the development of our own country over which we have control. But it is not only that. This policy has been steadily pursued by the representatives of the financiers. Let me quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT—

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1926.
Army and Air Force (Annual) Act,1926.
Dunfermline and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation Act, 1926.
Chosen Syndicate, Limited, Act,1926.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Parish of Manchester Division Act, 1850 (Amendment), Measure, 1926.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

EMPIRE TRADE.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Mr. JOHNSTON: It strikes me as extraordinary that a party professing to take a strong stand for Empire trade, which lives electorally on "Buy British Goods," should be guaranteeing a loan of £2,000,000 for a Greek electrical scheme, and handing over the work to a French firm.
There are even more extraordinary illustrations of this Empire policy that we do not hear so much about. On the 23rd of February this year my hon. Friend the Member for Saint Helen's (Mr. Sexton) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether or not it was the case that the Government had guaranteed sums of money, admitted afterwards to be over £1,000,000, to a shipping company called the Silver Line, and whether or not it was the case that it was a purely American concern, and that the Silver Line were actually using this guarantee of public money to trade with their American boats against British ships. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the facts, and declared that there were other occasions upon which these reactions upon British trade could be more profitably explored. But there it was— we were guaranteeing Yankee shippers more than £1,000,000 in order to compete with British interests.
Here is an even more extraordinary instance than that, and I trust I shall have the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Overseas Trade upon this, because it vitally interests him. The constituency which I jointly represent with another Member is the city of Dundee, which lives very largely upon jute manufactures. By going through the Annual Statement of Trade of the United Kingdom for 1924— the volume for 1925 is not yet issued— I find a contrast between the imports of jute goods coming from Holland in the year 1921 and the imports in 1924. In 1921 we imported from Holland £57,000 worth of cordage, cable, rope, twine, etc.; in 1924 the figure had risen to £142,000. Imports of jute sacks and bags rose in the same period from £568 to £19,086; jute manufactured goods from £2,000 to £63,000; and jute
carpets and rugs from Czechoslovakia rose from £3,000 to £178,000. I submit there is something here requiring explanation. What is the reason of it? I tumbled across a part of the reason quite by accident. I discovered the British Government subsidising the English Beet Sugar Corporation— note the word "English, 'because it is the only thing English about it— and I found that the leading light in this English Beet Sugar Corporation is called Van Rosen.

Mr. LANSBURY: A good English
name!

Mr. JOHNSTON: Van Rosen's head-quarters are in Amsterdam. I discovered that they had ceased buying jute bags in Britain for their sugar. Though they take public money as a subsidy to develop the sugar-beet industry at Cantley— last year they got £360,000 from the British taxpayer by way of subsidy for one factory at Cantley— they have ceased to buy their jute bags in this country and buy them in Holland. Then I began to inquire who ran the jute factory in Holland, and I ran up against our friend Van Rosen. Then I submitted questions to the Clerks at the Table about this, but apparently there are some Regulations which I contravened, and I cannot get my questions accepted. Then I went to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department, and with his customary willingness to help, and his anxiety to extend the usefulness of his office, he agreed at once to inquire as to the labour conditions. That is what I am primarily interested in— the labour conditions and wages under which these jute bags are manufactured in Holland in competition with those manufactured in Dundee. Is the competition fair? Because, if it is, then it is obvious that the fault lies with the manufacturers of jute goods in Dundee, and it is along other lines that tariffs or prohibition that we must act. The hon. Gentleman replied that he made inquiries in Holland and got into touch with the Commercial Attaché at The Hague, and the Commercial Attaché reported thus. I would ask the House to listen to it. It is a gem. I am not blaming the hon. Gentleman, but he has got to begin sacking somebody if his office is to be of any use.
Mr. Zaalberg informed me to-day that Messrs. Terhorst and Company "—
Terhorst is Van Rosen—
at Rijssen had no permit for over hours, and that 48 hours was the usual working week. As regards wages, he stated that he had no particulars of the wages paid in Messrs. Terhorst's factory, but that this firm paid the usual textile wages in Twenthe. He further stated that these wages were based on certain basic minima and that their calculations were intricate.
And because the wages were based on certain basic minima and their calculations were intricate, he was sorry he could not tell us what they were.

Mr. SAMUEL: What is wrong with.
it?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Well, if the hon. Gentleman can make no further observations upon a situation like that than "What is wrong with it?" he will get up against very, very serious trouble in the occupation of his office. We want to know the labour conditions under which these goods are produced.

Mr. SAMUEL: My staff got that information at a few hours' notice in order that I might have it available to give to the hon. Member. I told him if he would give me a week or so I would make fuller inquiries and find out more than I could find out in a few hours.

Mr. JOHNSTON: As a matter of fact, I gave the hon. Gentleman several days. I am not blaming the hon. Gentleman. I distinctly said so. I said he had put the machinery of his office into operation. What I am saying is that his representative at The Hague tells him he cannot get the information. I could send a trade union organiser to Amsterdam and get this information in 48 hours. I think we are entitled to know the conditions under which goods are produced, especially when they are being subsidised by British money.
Hon. Members opposite say "Let us have Imperial preference: that is the cure." Are they prepared to give Imperial preference to goods produced under the British flag when those goods are produced under sweated conditions? I have here a case of a Nottingham firm which set up a boot factory at Port Elizabeth in South Africa, which pays its half-caste labourers 2s. per day, and produces boots and shoes which crushes us out of the market. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say that we ought to give preference in our markets to goods produced under those conditions? I have
another case here of pineapples and pears bottled in South Africa, where wages are 6d. per day. Ought we to give a preference to goods produced and handled under conditions such as those? I say "No." We say that we ought to have a clear examination as to the labour conditions under which the goods are produced. That is the policy of the party on these benches. I call to remembrance of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that when his lace goods proposal was before the House last year an hon. Member for Sheffield moved, and I seconded, an Amendment that no preference should be given to lace goods coming into Great Britain unless it could be shown they were not manufactured under sweated conditions. It was amazing to me that Members opposite voted in the Lobby in favour of the importation of sweated goods into this country.
While I say that, however, I am not blind to the fact that there are great possibilities for British trade under decent conditions in the British Empire. We have Australia working a 44-hours' week and paying a minimum wage of £4 5s. a week, and competing as best she can with dried fruits from Smyrna We would not deal with that case by taxation; we would deal with it more rigorously than that. In Scotland last year the Bakers' Union, when they discovered the conditions under which these Smyrna fruits were being packed, as a result of the investigations undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark (Mr. Haden Guest), passed a resolution asking their members never again to handle these goods, in the interests of the health of the people. That is the most effective way of dealing with the sweater; but they found themselves up against the fact that Australia could supply our market with only 10 per cent. of our requirements, and, consequently, the Bakers' Union in Scotland had to depart from its resolution.
There is one other interesting figure I got out of the Trade Returns to which I do not think public attention has been drawn. In 1925 the total West African purchases of British produce and manufactures were valued at £14,000,000. According to the "Statesmen's Year Book," the population of West Africa is over 21,000,000 British exports to West
Africa work out, therefore, at 12s. 6d. per head per annum of the people there. British exports to the United States of America work out at only 9s. 3d. per head; so that, per head of the population, the West African Colonies are a better market for our goods than is the United States. Why is that? Whom have we to thank for that? We have to thank the late George Cadbury for it. George Cadbury and several other cocoa firms used to buy their cocoa beans in the slave plantations of Portuguese West Africa. The late George Cadbury protested against the slavery being employed there, and as he could not get any satisfaction he organised the other cocoa firms in Europe. They instituted a rigid boycott of further purchases of cocoa beans from Portuguese slave territories, and they ordered them from the freer producers on the Gold Coast, with the result that the Gold Coast is now prosperous and able to buy 12s. 6d. per head of our goods as against 9s. 2d. per head in the United States. I think that alone proves that there are more efficacious means of promoting trade, and it shows that if we do our utmost to increase the purchasing power of our own people, and prevent this international traffic in sweated goods, that is the best way to deal with it, and that is the official policy of the party to which I belong.
I know the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer can be considered as an extreme Free Trader, but I think we are all agreed that there should be through the League of Nations a stop put to this international traffic in sweated goods. This has been done in regard to cocoa beans, woodwork, and other industries, and when the Government makes up its mind to use the machinery of the League of Nations and declare that henceforth any nation which violates its own signature to the Washington Convention like Japan has been doing by selling prints at prices which even the Indian peasants cannot purchase and with which the Indian worker cannot compete — so long as that state of things is going on, I beg the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to get a move on in regard to a new policy. Let him go to Geneva and tell the representatives of those nations which are violating their signature to the Washington Convention, that this kind of thing cannot be allowed to go on any longer and that if it
is not put an end to there will be a rigid boycott of their goods. You will by that means raise the purchasing power of the working classes all over the world, and at the same time you will abolish sweating. You will then have taken the only possible steps you can take to abolish this extraordinary amount of unemployment from which every industrial city is suffering in this country. Unless you improve the purchasing power of your customers we shall always have poverty.

Sir H. CROFT: Is it not a fact that those countries with the highest wages and higher purchasing power all over the world have protective tariffs?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I believe that India has got protective tariffs, and there are other countries which have got them where the wages conditions are bad, but what I am suggesting is that the mere carving out of the world into little water-tight compartments is of no use. You want an international regulation below which no producers will be allowed to work, and, if any of those producers do not observe the regulation, then every other civilised nation in the world should boycott them.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): We have just listened to a very interesting speech from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I shall not, of course, attempt to reply to all the points he has raised, because if I did I am afraid I should be trespassing in the region of questions which involve legislation. What I will say, however, is that we both seem to be seeking the same ultimate object, but I think he ought to carry his investigations a little further than he has done. Many of us differ in our fiscal ideas as to what is the best way to attain a particular object. What you have to consider is how far any means which seem at first attractive are actually practicable. I think if the hon. Member for Dundee carries his investigations a little further he will find that whatever practical difficulties offer themselves in regard to the present policy, the difficulties of prohibition are much greater.
Anybody who considers proposals for a tariff or duty, whether it be general, or particular, or prohibition, is inevitably
driven to the conclusion that whatever may be the shortcomings of duties, the practical difficulties of prohibition are infinitely greater. To a country with a world trade it is vitally important to consider the Empire trade, but we can never shut our eyes to the importance of our world trade. I would like to point out to the hon. Member for Dundee that, to make his system of selective prohibition effective, he would have to denounce almost every commercial treaty to which this country is a party, and that would be a very serious thing for the world trade of this country.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The proposals I put forward have been set out in very great detail in a pamphlet signed by members of the committee.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have read the pamphlet referred to with great interest and care, and it is a great relief to find not only the rank and file but even some leaders as well have strayed so far from the path of fiscal propriety as to support those suggestions. It is the policy set out in that pamphlet that I have considered with great care, and I am bound to say, after careful consideration, that that policy could not be carried out without a denunciation of those Treaties. I do not propose to follow those proposals of the hon. Member for Dundee further, although at the present moment criticisms have been made from both sides of the House in regard to alternative policies, what does emerge from this interesting debate is that there is a general con-census of opinion in all quarters of this House as to the great importance of using whatever means are possible in order to develop trade within the Empire. That is indeed a wise conclusion for this House to arrive at.
Whether we look at the general trend of trade, or at the particular advantages which have arisen from our Empire trade we are inevitably driven to the same conclusion. It was estimated by the Balfour Committee, a year or more ago, that while we were doing about 25 per cent. less export trade than pre-War, we were on the whole getting about the same share of any export trade that was going that we were getting before the War. It is not an easy calculation to make and I should think probably last year we were doing rather less than our
pre-War share of all the export trade of the world. Roughly speaking, in 1913 we were doing about 13 per cent., and last year we were doing perhaps about 11.9 per cent. of the world aggregate of export trade. It is not a very easy calculation to make, and the position probably is not as bad as it appears. We have no separate figures of manufactures as distinct from foodstuffs and so on for last year. Nevertheless, there certainly is a tendency in the world to import a larger amount of foodstuffs, and there is more export trade generally in foodstuffs all over the world. In 1925 there were great exports of grain, some of it at very high prices. I do not, therefore, attach undue importance to the figure, but I think that to-day the position is certainly better. It is one of the relatively satisfactory aspects of our improved trade that, whereas in years past we have seen a flicker of hope coming in our exports by an improvement of trade in October and November, in the new year it has died away.
In the first quarter of this year, for the first time, we see that advance has been steadily maintained, and the first quarter of 1926 shows a definite increase in the export of British manufactures over the general average for 1925. Even so, the first quarter of 1926 only sees us export between 82 per cent. and 83 per cent. of the volume of manufactured exports which we exported before the war. On those figures there is still a great need for expansion in our export trade, and particularly in regard to manufactures.
We cannot look for any quick increase in our exports to Europe where there are two factors which will undoubtedly militate against any rapid expansion. The first is that there is a greater industrial productive capacity in Europe to-day than there was before the War, and European countries, while they are poorer, are more able to meet their own requirements in the shape of manufactured goods.
In the second place while it is true that the return of Europe to stability and sound finance and to a gold standard is unquestionably in the long run a guarantee that Europe will be more prosperous in the future, and be able to purchase more, it is inevitable that during the period of a return to stability there will be hard times and a contraction and restriction of credit, and that means
that while Europe is getting back stability, she must economise her credit and consequently will be able to purchase less from this country. Therefore, more than ever we are driven to the necessity of developing new markets, and particularly the markets of the Empire. It is interesting to see that we are already in part succeeding in this endeavour. It is interesting to note how the proportion of our total exports to the Empire has grown. I have taken out, and hon. Members will recollect that I have published regularly in the "Board of Trade Journal," the distribution of our total trade in our different markets, showing, for every principal market in the world, what is the proportion of our total trade which went to that market before the War, and the proportion that is now going there year by year; and, similarly, where our import trade is coming from.
In 1913, before the War, our exports to the British Empire represented 37.2 per cent. of our total export trade. In 1920 that had fallen to 34.2 per cent. The House will remember that 1920 was the easy year, the year when you could sell anywhere, and you could cancel a contract and take up another; and it is to be remembered that, whether one looks to our present experience or whether one looks to the past, to any time in British industry between 1875 and 1900, while, during a period of boom, you can sell where you please and any market will take your goods, in a time of stress it is the mutual trade within the Empire that counts. In the period 1875–1900, British trade with foreign markets was almost stagnant. I do not suppose that our exports increased by more than £l,000,000. What saved us was the fact that our exports to the Empire almost doubled within that decade. In 1920, the easy period, our exports to Empire countries were only 34.2 per cent. of our total exports, but look what has happened in 1925. In 1925, our exports to the British Empire were 39.3 per cent. of our total exports, in a more difficult year, and it is satisfactory to observe that in the first quarter of 1926 we show a still further advance: we exported to the Empire considerably more than we did in the corresponding quarter of 1925, and no less than 10 per cent. more than we exported in the corresponding quarter of 1924.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Does not that figure for exports to the Empire in 1925 show a slight fall as compared with the percentage for 1924?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, it does not; we are steadily progressing. I can give the hon. Member the figures. In 1924 we exported 37.78 per cent., and, in 1925, 39.31 per cent.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is a different figure.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: These are the official figures, made out by the statisticians who have served us both so well, and I do not think there is any doubt about it. I will give the hon. Member another test; I will give him the percentages, quarter by quarter, of our exports of British goods. I will take the first quarter of 1924, 1925, and 1926. It tells the same story. In the first quarter of the year the proportion of our exports to the Empire is generally high— higher than the figures I have already given. In the first quarter of 1924, our exports to the Empire were 41.5 per cent., in the first quarter of 1925, 42.35 per cent., and in the first quarter of 1926, 45.81 per cent. That is a steady progression over the whole time; but the story does not end there. When you come to the character of our exports, the importance of the Empire trade is even more marked. Of our exports to foreign countries, 28 per cent. are fully manufactured articles; of our exports to the Empire, 38 per cent. are fully manufactured articles. Therefore, both in volume and in character, this expansion is proceeding.
It is also true that, just as our trade with the Empire is expanding, so is the Empire trade with this country growing, and growing even more rapidly, emphasising the mutual character of the trade. In 1913, the imports into the United Kingdom from the British Empire were 24.87 per cent. of our total imports, and in 1925 they had risen to 29.77 per cent. of our total imports, while in the first quarter of this year they showed again a marked increase as compared with the corresponding period last year and the year before. That illustrates beyond question the value to the Dominions and Colonies of the Wembley Exhibition and of the intensive selling campaign and the intensive effort that has been made by the whole British
people to realise the possibilities of what trade with the Empire can do. These are satisfactory features, both by reason of the position as it is to-day and, still more, by reason of the hope which they carry with them in the development of future possibilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher), in a speech which I thought was of very great interest on Indian trade, coming from one who has close and long personal knowledge of the subject, drew attention to some features in Indian trade which gave him anxiety. It is true that we are meeting keen competition in some lines in the Indian market, and we shall have to meet that competition in the future, but there are two considerations which, in a close study of our Indian trade, are causes for satisfaction. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out how difficult it was for India to buy when the price of Indian commodities was relatively low and the price of imports from this country was relatively high. That, of course, was very marked after the War. In 1920, India was having to pay, because of the great rise in world prices, something like 3½ times as much as before the War for British goods and other commodities which she used to import, and she was only getting about 75 per cent. more for her exports. To-day, however, prices have come much nearer together. To-day it is estimated that Indian import prices are from 70 to 75 per cent. above are-War, whereas the price which India is getting for her commodities is probably about 40 to 50 above pre-War. There is, therefore, a much closer approximation between the price at which India sells and the price at which India has to buy. Again, although my hon. Friend referred, and it is a matter of anxiety, to a shrinkage in our total exports of piece goods to India, there is one factor, with which he also is probably acquainted, which is on the satisfactory side. Before the War, India used to import two bales of grey for one of white and one of coloured. After the War, when prices were high and purchasing power relatively low, the proportion of grey greatly increased. Today, however, I am told that India is importing seven of grey, five of white, and three of coloured. The reason why I say that that is hopeful is that it is in the white goods that we have a great
predominence and superlative skill, and it is in the white goods that we have maintained practically our pre-War predominence in Indian markets. We are still, in the case of these white goods, doing 96 per cent. of the Indian import trade.
My hon. Friend also referred to the question of Indian railways. As he knows, the development of Indian railways must rest with the Indian Government, and it would certainly be both unwise and improper to try to force, in the interests of this country, a development which India could not meet or did not require. I agree, however, with my hon. Friend, and I think any impartial observer, reading the Acworth Report, and speaking with those who are acquainted with Indian railway administration, Indian travel facilities, and Indian desire for travel, would agree that it is in the interest of India, as rapidly as she can finance it, to increase her railway development and her railway facilities, and that entirely in her own interest. My hon. Friend may remember that at the last Imperial Conference we did hold out every inducement we could to the Indian Government to accelerate that development, and there was a proposal at the Imperial Conference in 1923, which was embodied in legislation, for giving a grant of three-quarters of the interest for a period of five years on accelerated development. Therefore, I think that anything we can do has been done.

Mr. PILCHER: Could that offer be made again to the Indian Government now?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is a standing offer: it is embodied in legislation, and I hope that, when the Imperial Conference comes round again this year, we may have the opportunity of discussing railway development, and discussing it, as I have said, entirely in the interests of Indian requirements, which, of course, must govern the situation.

Sir F. WISE: Has it been used at all?

7.0 P.M.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, not by India; not at all. From this need for developing markets, and, above all, Empire markets, we draw a second lesson, and that is the enormous importance of saving to invest, because it is only by investment that new markets can
be developed; and that leads up to the great importance of increasing the favourable trade balance of this country, in order that there may be more money for investment overseas. Buying British goods not only helps in itself by giving employment; it helps twice over, because it increases the available trade balance of this country, and helps us to develop other markets, which in themselves will be great buyers in the future. I have given on more than one occasion the figures of the apparent adverse balance, which, of course, are matters of fact, and, I think the estimate we made of the real net balance last year was a very conservative one. I think probably the invisible exports are a good deal higher than conservative statisticians would put them. Even making a big allowance for this, it is certain that our real trade balance available for investment to-day is not only relatively but actually far less than it was before the War. That being so, the amount of money available for investment being limited, two things appear essential. The first thing is to save, and the next is to invest to the best advantage, and to invest in those parts where your investment will give an immediate return and a progressive increase. We can all help. The individual can help in his individual capacity. The manufacturer can help by increasing his study of the market. I believe what was said by my hon. Friend that the further afield the market the more essential is the personal touch. I could wish that manufacturers would combine more for representation in distant markets. Four or five firms could join together and offer to pay one first-class man. It is better that they should get an order between them than that it should go to some foreign competitor.
The Government will give all the assistance which the Government properly can give to trade. I am not going in any polemical way to enter into an argument with the hon. Member for East Ham. South (Mr. Barnes), but I would hope it might be found possible to develop inter-Imperial trade without completely revolutionising the whole economic system of this country and setting up one State organisation in this country which would control all our trade. Short of that there is much the Government can do. I have had, and my hon. Friend the Secretary
for the Overseas Trade Department has also had, many examples of orders and reproductive orders which have come through the activities of the trade commissioners in the Dominions and Colonies. Everything we can do to help emigration we are doing. I agree that when you look at the money which is being expended the results are, relatively, small. In that we shall persevere, and it is one of the subjects which will be dealt with, I hope exhaustively, at the coming Imperial Conference. We are helping by such efforts as the British Industries Fair. We can help with export credits. We are improving and simplifying the scheme in the way the Committee has recommended. That will simplify procedure. It will give an increased guarantee. But I still join issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Waddington), we are not going to finance consignment business. I am sure the practice which we have always followed in export credits is sound. We must only finance new business. We have a system of general credits, under which the manufacturer is able to draw his bills against new orders when he gets them. He then has the advantage of using up stocks. We only finance new business. We cannot go back on that and start financing old stocks.

Mr. WADDINGTON: These stocks are by no means old stocks. The seasonal demands of overseas markets require that the goods shall be there. Stocks are made to-day and sold in six months.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is perfectly true and that can be assisted by the system of general credits under which the exporter is able to get his covering authority for sales up to an agreed figure in a particular market and he can obtain his finance within that figure as he sells his goods. I have had a proposal made to me not only to carry stocks made against the coming season, but to carry stocks much more than a few months old. I am sure we must stand to the principle that new business only should be financed. Subject to that limitation, I hope the new facilities will be of value, and I hope that they will be known to the general public. Whatever my hon. Friend can do will be done.
There is also the Empire marketing grant to which another hon. Member has
referred involving the finding of £500,000 this year and a larger sum in future years. Railway Development in the Colonies is being undertaken both under the guaranteed loan or by loans raised without guarantees on the London market. The hon. Member mentioned Nigeria. He spoke of a limited amount which had been done in Nigeria in the past. I am glad to be able to inform him that Nigerian railway development is now progressing much more rapidly. By the end of this year an additional 294 miles of railway will be open, and another railway of 115 miles has been started within the last few weeks, the completion of which, it is hoped, will enable that Colony to export three times as much cotton as at the present time.
The hon. Member for Rossendale further suggested that we ought to do more in the way of co-ordinating Empire development. Particularly, he referred to freights and shipping. I think he ignored the great work done by the Imperial Shipping Committee. That Committee, which was established after the report from which he quoted, has been sitting now four or five years. It is an Imperial body whose members are appointed by the Governments of the different parts of the Empire. Since its inception it has dealt with 14 big questions arising in Imperial trade. They include the constitution of a permanent Imperial body on shipping questions; deferred rebates; rates of freight in the New Zealand trade; the economic size and speed of vessels in the Australian trade; the prospective size of vessels in the Eastern Australian trade via Suez; rates in the North Atlantic trade; Canadian marine insurance; East African shipping services; and methods of assessment of shipping to Income Tax within the Empire. That is a good sample of practical shipping questions which arise in Imperial trade, and every one of these has been dealt with by this Imperial body. They have reported unanimously in every case to the Governments of the Empire, and in nearly every case, I think, the recommendations have been acted upon. I do not believe that it would be possible or desirable to attempt to establish executive bodies of Empire authority. Advisory bodies, yes; but
there is nothing from which some of the Dominions would be more averse, and, I think, rightly, than to set up an executive body which was representative of the whole Empire. That, I feel sure, would not be acceptable to the Dominions, but on the advisory side we have, as the hon. Member is aware, established an Imperial Marketing Committee. The Imperial Economic Committee, the counterpart of the Imperial Shipping Committee, is in session to-day, and has made two reports of great value.
There was one other point raised, and that was air routes. A good deal more has been done than the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was inclined to admit, or perhaps knew. Let me say two things to him. In the first place, it is not quite so simple or so sure as his arithmetical calculations would have led us to believe. Whether with aeroplanes or airships the development of an air service to Australia is a matter which requires a great deal of experiment, and is one of considerable financial uncertainty. You cannot count upon that regular flow of mails day by day which he suggested. But it is a matter of great importance, though I do not think it has perhaps on all grounds quite the importance he suggested. If I wanted to pass a large sum of money to Australia, he suggested I could only do it by sending a cheque by post and by paying large interest. Cable transfers are sure, and simpler, and more economical than that, in spite of the rates sometimes charged for cable transfers in that direction. It is of great importance to accelerate the mail services. It was taken up at the Economic Conference, and the Air Ministry have been by no means idle since. It is hoped that services from Cairo to Karachi will be working by the end of the year. Experimental flights have been made by the Air Ministry along that route. Experimental flights have also been made from the Cape to Cairo, and, what the Dominions stressed at the Conference, constant consultation between the Dominions and this country, is steadily going on, and information is interchanged and consultation takes place by correspondence every month with the Dominion of Australia and the Air Ministry, and I think with the other Dominions.
In every one of these ways the Government can help, and is helping. This Amendment is an incentive to us to pursue its objects. To all this one other thing must be added. Whether it is in Empire markets or in foreign markets, we have to produce efficiently and to sell as cheaply as we can. That means output and it means good plant, and those two are dependent the one upon the other. We shall only develop Empire trade in the future, as in the past, if we have the same spirit of adventure in business that those merchant adventurers who went out to found our Empire trade had in the past. If that spirit of adventure is to be there, there must be one requisite here, and that is security and stability at home.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this point. Many of us are concerned as to what the effect will be upon the food import of the control boards which are operating now in New Zealand, and are likely to operate in Australia. It is important from the point of view of Empire trade that we should not have any artificial restrictions on those imports, and I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has been in touch with merchants and the importing interest in this country as to the effect on our markets of the new control, and whether he is able to give us any further information.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should not like in a sentence or two to deal with the whole question of that development. I am aware that it is of importance, but I think it would be extremely unwise if I were to attempt, in answer to a question, to discuss, still less to criticise, such State Boards as have been set up.

Mr. L. H. GUEST: The right hon. Gentleman's speech has been not only very interesting to listen to but will, I am sure, be a very useful source of information when one reads it in the printed form. I am also grateful to him for the fact that when dealing with what he calls the difficulties of the prohibition policy of the Labour party, he was so clear and so explicit, thus I think making quite definite what is the real issue between the two parties. It is true, as he said— and I think only one hon. Mem-
ber on that side has said anything of a different character— that the desirability of furthering Empire trade, in fact of furthering any kind of trade, is a matter that is accepted by every single person in the House. But while we would make the pivot of our policy the standard of life of the worker, the right hon. Gentleman would make the pivot of his policy something less exactly definite, and perhaps not quite so exactly definable. The right hon. Gentleman may say that to make the standard of life of the worker, that is to say of the producer, the pivot of trade policy is not a possible thing. It is not only a possible thing but it will be found in practice to be the only economic thing for this or any other country to do.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not want the hon. Member to misunderstand me. I am as anxious as he is to maintain and to increase wages and employment. The only issue between us is that, whereas he says you can do it by prohibition of imports and licences, I think ho will find that is an impracticable policy to carry out.

Mr. GUEST: I am very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he is as anxious as I am to increase wages, because I assure him I am so tremendously anxious and enthusiastic about it that from this time onwards I shall give him no peace on the matter with regard to his safeguarding proposals and all the other matters which involve the question of the standard of life of the workers. We can count him from this time forward as our ally in the campaign for high wages. We are exceedingly glad to know that that is the direction in which his mind is working. Therefore it is rather a pity he did not bring his mind to bear on the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was framing his Budget in order to get something more put into it to deal with that aspect of the situation. I should like to call attention to a phrase bearing very directly on this matter of the trade of the Empire— a sentence in the Budget speech. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was summing up the whole question of revenue and expenditure:
When, therefore, we contrast on the one hand a revenue which in its permanent branches is barely holding its own with the strong tide of expenditure on the other "— 
There he raised his arms with that dramatic charm which is one of his delightful attributes—
the outlook is somewhat bleak."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1926; col. 1691, Vol. 194.]
I listened to the Chancellor, as I have listened to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, with great attention and, looking at the matter for the moment from the standpoint of the finances of the Empire as a whole, I do not see that the policy laid down by the right hon. Gentleman is going to make the outlook any less black. It is, of course, a conservative proposal. It only looks a very short way ahead. It cannot be described as a very courageous policy, and while I notice the right hon. Gentleman said we can all help, the individual purchaser can help and every person can help, he did not tell us how the Government could help, and it seems to me that in this matter of Empire trade the Government ought to help very much more than they are doing at present. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about his Budget of last year as a Budget of silk and gold. I suppose this year it might be called a Budget of bookies and brewers. It would really have been very much better if he had devoted his Budget to developing the standard of life of the workers and improving the trade and the resources of the Empire as a whole and made it a Budget of men and Empire instead of bookies and brewers.
There is only one way in which Empire trade can really be made to take the position in the world that we all say we want it to take, and that is by improving, in the first instance, the purchasing power of the internal home market, which the Chancellor said was 10 times the external trade of the country. Whether that figure is correct or not I think that is the figure he gave. At any rate, the internal trade is very much more valuable than the external, and unless you raise the purchasing power of the internal market you will not get prosperity restored. The only way of doing that is by the policy which the President of the Board of Trade and I have agreed is the policy for the country, a policy definitely making for high wages in industry. That is not, unfortunately, a policy which is very much in favour at present with employers as it is with the President of the Board of
Trade, as I gather from the hon. Gentleman opposite that he is in favour of the
same policy.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Of course, we are in favour of high wages. But we want to be able to turn our goods into money again in the export market so as to get back their cost and the higher wages we-pay the better we like it.

Mr. GUEST: It is extremely unfortunate, if that is the view of the Government, that they did not send out to the country a clarion call for high wages, that they did not say to the employers, "This is the root of prosperity, this is the way we must travel," because unfortunately the employers do not agree with the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Gentleman opposite. Empire trade, according to the Budget, is to be helped by a series of preferences, and when the question of Preference came before the House I supported it, and I shall do the same again, hut there are very many other ways in which trade could be helped, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us why the Government is not making use of some of those ways which are in its power to do. Take, for instance, this question, of which we have heard a great deal, of buying British goods and Empire goods, and we have an Empire marketing fund of £500,000. What has been done with that fund? What is being done with it at present? What has happened to the other £500,000 which was going to be given to the Dominions as compensation? In fact, why is it that, with the executive ability which distinguishes the Government, they have not been able to devise a method of spending to the benefit of the Dominion producer even £500.000 up to the present. What is the defect in organisation? Why have they not done it? An hon. Member opposite raised the question of migration. Is it not a lamentable fact that with an Empire Settlement Act, enabling us to spend up to £3,000,000 a year, with the fact admitted on all sides of the House that a man resident in Australia is a very much better customer for our goods than a man resident elsewhere outside this country, we have never yet been able to organise our migration so as to spend more than a small fraction of that amount? That is one of the ways in which Empire trade could be very much
helped. Why is it? May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his Department is very largely to blame in the matter? There is no one body in this country at present really responsible for migration. Migration is no one's job.

Mr. SAMUEL: Oh, yes.

Mr. GUEST: Let the hon. Gentleman think himself for a moment out of his responsible office into the position of a young man in a country village, or in an industrial part of a great city, who wants to know what are the opportunities open to him for migration. He wants to know where he can best get employment. He wants to know where his special capacity will best get a chance of showing itself. To what place is that man to go to get information?

Mr. SAMUEL: The Oversea Settlement Department of the Dominions Office.

Mr. GUEST: I suppose there is a special waiting room there reserved for agricultural labourers and for people who have been at the queue of the Employment Exchange. It is not easy for anyone to get any information on the subject of migration, and anyone who wants to get information has to go from one railway or steamship office to another, from one Dominion office to another.

Mr. SAMUEL: I should not like that to go unchallenged A large amount of information is available at Employment Exchanges. All the information he desires is obtainable, with the slightest exertion, from the Labour Office.

Mr. GUEST: I am sorry I do not agree. A certain amount of information is available at Employment Exchanges, and that is the very worst possible place for it to be available, because it at once connects migration, in the minds of the man who is applying for work, with unemployment. It is using, or appearing to use, the weapon of unemployment and starvation to drive people out of the country, and that is a policy I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to identify himself with and it is certainly a policy to which we on this side of the House are implacably opposed.
If the hon. Gentleman when he wants to visit Germany or Switzerland or Greece or any other part of the world,
had as much difficulty in getting information about his journey as anyone who wishes to go to Canada or Australia has, he would not go to the Continent as frequently as he does. What we want is an Information Bureau which shall make it as easy for the intending migrants to get information in regard to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or any other part of the Empire, as it is for the hon. Member or myself to get information about hotels in Paris, Berlin or Milan. We want a kind of Imperial Cook's Office to which people can go. Until something of that kind is done it will not be possible for large numbers of people to migrate. The £3 fare to Canada is attractively low but, quite frankly, I am rather afraid of a large number of people going in an unorganised way, and I am afraid that some of them will have such a severe experience that the reaction in this country will be worse than if they had not gone.
I have given this instance, and I might have given more, to show that the Government who at the present time are so loud in their protestations of Imperial enthusiasm, are not using their powers to help the Dominion producer through the Empire Marketing Fund, are not using to the full extent their resources and powers to help migrants, and are not making use of those resources which they already have. If the Government are going to help the development of Empire trade, they ought to throw the whole of their weight and influence into the organisation of our trade and resources. The direction of Empire policy must be done by the State and it must be done by this Government because there is no other body big enough or broadminded enough to do it. You cannot possibly leave emigration and Empire trade in their different aspects to private initiative. Private initiative is too shortsighted. It is only possible for an Imperial Government to take a sufficiently long view.
I have wondered whether the Government are keeping something up their sleeve for the Imperial Conference. Are they keeping in hand some wonderful proposals which are going to help the Empire and to make into realities the enthusiasm of after-dinner speeches, for use at the Imperial Conference, or are there no proposals? I begin to think that the Government enthusiasm for
Empire is rather like that of Mr. Micawber who, if I remember rightly, also had certain Colonial experience at one stage of his career, and that they are waiting for something to turn up in home affairs and waiting for something to turn up in Imperial affairs. Let me give another concrete example. If the Government are so very anxious to develop trade with the Empire, why have they not assisted or attempted to assist the motor export trade to the Empire? The motor export trade to the Empire is penalised by the fact that cars in this country have to be made in order to comply with the conditions of taxation as to horse-power and those cars are not suitable for the Empire market.

Mr. SAMUEL indicated dissent.

Mr. GUEST: So I am informed by Empire authorities. Apparently, the hon. Member disagrees with that view. I am informed that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken off the tax on horse power and substituted, as he spoke of doing, perhaps, next year, a tax on petrol consumption, that that might have had the effect of enabling the British motor car to compete on equal terms with the American motor car in the Colonial market, and with great advantage. I am aware of the difficulties there are, but I am told that this is one of the things that the Government might have done. I am instancing these facts because when it comes to doing something practical the Government, who talk in strains of tremendous Imperial enthusiasm, are doing very little, or nothing at all.

Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot allow that statement to pass. The suggestion with regard to the beneficial effect that the change from a tax on horse-power to petrol consumption would have upon British Empire overseas trade in British motor-cars was one which I looked into very thoroughly the first month or two after I was appointed to my present office. A former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), made a statement on this same matter yesterday with which I did not agree. It is not often that I disagree with him. Last year I put the whole question of the export of British motor-
cars to the Dominions and the Colonies before representatives of the motor trade, and I came to the conclusion, and they came to the conclusion, that there was nothing in the idea which has just been mentioned by the hon. Member. The export of motor-cars to the Dominions and Colonies has been looked into by my Department, so the charge about the Government doing nothing is not well substantiated. The export of British motor-cars to the Dominions, particularly Australia and New Zealand, shows a very wholesome and satisfactory rise. The fact of the matter is that during the War our motor people had not the chance to get into those markets, and American cars crept in. Now we are getting into those markets. But we are so busy with home trade that we have not yet reached a saturated market at home so that our output can overflow into the Colonial markets. We are, however, getting Colonial markets, and the hon. Member need have no fear that we shall not get a full share of those markets in due course.

Mr. GUEST: I hope that statement by the hon. Member will calm the country in general, but I am sorry to say that it does not calm me. It may be true that the hon. Member disagrees with the right hon. Member for Hillhead, whom, I am sorry to say, is not in his place. On this occasion I am inclined to think that there is something in what the right hon. Member for Hillhead said. In the Dominions and Colonies certain British cars will not function owing to the fact that they are built on a specification for our home market and they do not work adequately in that market. It may be true that the hon. Member's Department has looked into this matter, and that the Government have looked into the question of migration, just as they have looked for many months into the question of Empire marketing, but they have not done anything about it. What the country and the Empire wants is not that the matter should be looked into, but that something shall be done effectively.
We want a very much more vigorous Empire policy than we are likely to get. I should like to know what justification the Government have to offer for nothing whatsoever having been done to carry out the promise to the Dominions to give them a grant of £1,000,000 to help Empire
marketing. Why has no scheme been introduced for that purpose? I daresay there is some kind of official explanation. I do not know whether it will satisfy the Dominions. I hope it will not satisfy the Dominions, because I cannot see what justification there can be for the long delay. Are the Government going to pay the Dominions interest on the money which ought to have been expended a year ago or during the past year? The same argument applies with regard to migration. What is the justification of the Government for not spending up to the amount already possible under the Empire Settlement Act? Everybody agrees as to the desirability of migration. The hon. Member may think that the Oversea Settlement Committee provides all the information that is required, but I would respectfully suggest that it is not practical politics to ask the ordinary applicant who wishes to have information for the purpose of migration, to go to the Oversea Settlement Office or to the Employment Exchange.
The men who go to the Employment Exchanges to draw the unemployment dole frequently complain to me that they can got nothing but very sharp and sudden replies to the most ordinary question dealing with unemployment and the money which they are to receive. If these men were to ask for the detailed, careful and personal consideration which is necessary, and which should be given, to men when they are considering the important question of going from this country to another country, I imagine that they would, to use a popular phrase, "Get their heads snapped off." I do not think it is a good policy to ask them to go to the Employment Exchanges, where they have to get their unemployment benefit, in order to secure information about the Dominions.
If the Government are serious about Empire trade they must translate the declaration which the President of the Board of Trade has made about a campaign for high wages, into action. Let them tack on to the proposals about the safeguarding of industries a proviso that when an industry benefits by safeguarding, it shall at the same time benefit its workers, and that every increase of profits in a trade which is safeguarded shall be followed by an immediate and comparable increase in wages. That is
a very sound economic scheme. It would distribute wealth and increase purchasing power. Let the Government take steps to increase the standard of life in this country. The real difference between the party opposite and ourselves is that the party opposite is conservative and, perhaps, rather timorous, and have not the necessary initiative and enterprise to do these big things. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here. In a charmingly humorous way he compared himself to a swimmer going across the Channel, and at a certain moment having to decide whether he should give up the attempt or go forward with the gold standard. I cannot help thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done better had he compared himself to a goat tied to a stake by a chain, and only able to run round a very limited circle.
The Government at the present time seem to be tied by a chain, the chain of their own ideas, not the chain of economic necessity, and we shall not get out Empire trade or our home trade put on a good foundation until the chain which binds the country to Conservative principles and ideas is broken, and until we are able to take very much more drastic steps to improve the standard of life of the workers than any Conservative Government will give us. We shall not get Empire trade until a Government are in office who have the initiative to carry out and put into operation the powers which they already possess. If you want a vigorous Empire you must do two things, first, you must take the Empire into partnership, and that you have not done up to the present, and, secondly, you must take the workers into the partnership which you are always refusing to do.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I was sorry to put a question without notice to the President of the Board of Trade earlier in the Debate; but I hope that between now and the occasion when next we discuss Empire trade and Empire development, the question I raised will be looked into. Those of us who are interested in the very large question of the import of foodstuffs, particularly from the Empire, are very much concerned as to what the effect may be upon the British market for these goods, and consequently upon the reciprocal trade from this country by export to the
Empire. The percentage of imports of certain staple foodstuffs from the Dominions are so high in comparison with the total amount of the imports into this country that it may be a very important and serious question in the future. From New Zealand, for instance, we are taking 48 per cent. of all the cheese we import, and of butter, 22 per cent. When that comes to be governed by a system of control not exactly in the hands of the Government but under a Board which is partly controlled by the Government, if that is used for the manipulation of prices against the consumer, upon whose purchasing capacity the market may depend, it may have a very serious effect. I regret that we could not have had a fuller statement from the President of the Board of Trade, but that was largely because I had not given notice of the question. I hope the matter will be looked into before the next occasion. The only other point I want to raise is this— it is a matter of grave importance. We were told by the President of the Board of Trade that the Indian trade would be very much improved if the peasants were able to buy goods which they cannot take at present. He made some reference to the differentiation in price levels during the last few years, but what I want to drive home is that while he is perfectly correct in saying that prices for some Indian goods have improved, that is actually reflected in the profits of British capitalists holding shares in Indian companies, and the real fact is that the position of the Indian worker has not simultaneously improved.
Take the tea position. In the last four years there has been an extraordinary development in the position of British tea companies in India. They have paid 40 per cent., 50 per cent. and as much as 60 per cent., and I think the Board of Trade might very usefully use their influence in order to see that British companies in this happy financial position used some of the accrued surplus now coming to them, some of this 40, 50 and 60 per cent., for improving the position of the Indian peasants. Then there might be a better hope for the textile workers of this country. I emphasise that particularly because of the statement made at Wembley by one of the assistant-registrars of one of the Indian
provinces at the Empire Co-operative Conference. He said that if you raise the purchasing power of the Indian peasants by £1 per head per annum, the whole of Lancashire would be kept fully employed.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[CAPTAIN FITZROY in the Chair.]

CLASS 1.

REVENUE BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £884,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices Abroad, and for certain Expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department."— [Note: £441,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. VIANT: I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to certain items connected with the Unemployment Relief Fund. In last year's Estimates certain amounts were allocated for unemployment relief work. In the Estimates now submitted these amounts have been completely erased, nothing whatever is provided, and I am rather apprehensive as to the policy that is being pursued by the Government in this respect. According to the Estimates of last year a sum of £11,890 was allotted for unemployment relief work on Post Office buildings. It has been taken out of the Estimate this year and nothing whatever put in its place. I want to ask whether it is the opinion of the Government that there is no longer any need to make this provision for unemployment relief work. I feel that there is yet sufficient unemployment in our midst to warrant a provision being made in the present Estimates. Are we to assume that it is the opinion of the Department that the accommodation and the condition of the accommodation is all that can be desired? Is the sanitary condition perfectly satisfactory? Is there
no need for painting and decoration? I hope the Minister, when he replies, will not say that the Department feel that the skilled trades in the building industry are so well employed that they see no reason to make the provision they did last year for these unemployment relief works. So far as the decorating trade is concerned there is a considerable amount of unemployment, hence my desire to have a statement from the Minister in charge of this Vote as to the precise policy of the Government in this respect.
I also want to raise the question of the need for more direct employment of labour by the Office of Works. This is one of the best safeguards any Government can have to keep the prices of private contractors within bounds. The experience of the Office of Works has been such as to justify this House in asking that the Department will still retain this policy and put it into effect. Much of the work of painting and decorating could be done very successfully by the employment of direct labour, and it could be done at a time when those who are engaged in this industry are most hardly hit, that is, during the winter months. If provision is not made in the Estimate, the Department is unable to carry out this policy. The next point is in connection with a matter which I raised with the Office of Works last June or July. I have not the letter with me, but it was in connection with certain work which was let by the contractor to a sub-contractor, and it was found that the wages paid to french polishers were not the trade union rates of wages. They were receiving 2d. per hour less than the trade union rate, and the difference arose from the fact that the man who was in charge of the work had evidently retained that 2d. per hour for himself. If dangers of that kind are going to arise it is all the more justification that the Department should employ more direct labour. Evils of that kind ought not to be permitted, and I shall be glad to hear, in view of that experience, that steps have been taker, to sec that such an evil is not likely to occur again. It is not only in connection with this Vote that there has been a great deduction made in this provision, but no provision has been made in other Votes for the provision of sums for unemployment relief schemes. I hope
the Under-Secretary will be able to allay the apprehensions I have in this respect, which are shared by many others on this side of the House.

8.0 P.M.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): The hon. Member has raised one or two important points in connection with this Vote. He has put to me a question in connection with unemployment relief works and why it is that in this year's Estimate there appears to be no provision made for such unemployment relief. In the first place, up to a few years ago the Office of Works had a large amount of road work to be done, and in answering a question on the Supplementary Estimate I stated that the reason why that particular form of unemployment relief was not kept up was because all that work had been completed, and when these roads are finished and in a satisfactory state it is obvious that the Department cannot continue to spend money in that direction. The relief of unemployment in connection with building operations during the past three or four years also comprised arrears of painting and general maintenance. The hon. Member expressed the hope that I would not use the argument that painters and decorators were fully occupied, but he must admit that the builders, joiners, plumbers, bricklayers, and, in fact, most of the skilled workmen in the country have not at the moment a great deal of difficulty in finding employment. Thus, as we had caught up the arrears of painting and general maintenance work which accrued during the War, and in the immediate post-War period, and as there is not a great deal of unemployment in the skilled trades, it is unnecessary for us to spend more public money at the moment, in order to employ workpeople in those Trades.
There is another matter in connection with general Government policy. It is the policy of the Government at the moment to solve the unemployment problem on lines other than the provision of temporary relief work, and to absorb men as far as possible into industry and into their usual occupations. Another factor which accounts for the Office of Works not having a large estimate shown in connection with unemployment relief work, is the fact that there has been a very welcome drop in unemployment
during the last 12 months. Twelve months ago it was more necessary than to-day to make some contribution towards unemployment relief. I do not want the hon. Member to run away with the idea that, because this sub-head has been done away with, we are not still most anxious, whenever possible, to provide work for the class of men enumerated by the hon. Member. What the disappearance of the sub-head means is that what extra employment can be found comes under different heads. On page 13 of the Estimates the hon. Member will find an example. There is shown an increase of £11,750 for maintenance and repairs. Very largely that is accounted for by work which normally would have been placed under the other sub-head "Unemployment Relief Work."

Mr. VIANT: That is only in connection with parks. I have been discussing other Departments. I endeavoured to stress the need for still retaining a sum in the Estimates for the employment of men who are affected during the winter months— men in the decorating trade.

Captain HACKING: I gave that only as an illustration to show that we were not callous and forgetful of the necessity of giving such relief work as we could. It is true that, so far as painters are concerned, we are not making any special provision or planning any special work, unless the work is absolutely necessary. We deem it unnecessary at the moment to reintroduce the sub-head "Unemployment Relief Work."

Notice, taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—

Captain HACKING: The hon. Member also drew attention to the question of direct employment. Apparently he assumed that we did not care to employ directly. It certainly is the policy of the Department, wherever possible, to carry out work in connection with buildings under their charge by the contract system, but there is a great amount of work carried out by direct employment. I would mention a few examples. There are the engineering and maintenance works in the London district and some provincial centres. The number of men employed is approximately 1,200. Then there is the work carried out in the work-
shops of the Supplies Division, the industrial staff, central and subsidiary workshops. The numbers engaged there are approximately 250. Then there are various concerns under the control of the Superintendent of Stores, employing approximately 120 We carry out by direct employment the repair and maintenance of ancient monuments. Then there is the general maintenance work in the parks, where the number of labourers and gardeners employed is about 450. There are the day-to-day repairs of certain housing estates, and there is the whole of the staff at Osborne, administrative, nursing and domestic.
Therefore, to a considerable extent we meet the hon. Gentleman in the direction that he has indicated. The only other point made was as to the trade union rate of wages being paid. The hon. Member cited a case of which I was unaware, because it referred to a time before I accepted my present office, and not having had notice of it, it is not within my power at the moment to give him a considered answer. There is no doubt, I think, that that was an isolated case.

Mr. VIANT: I do not for one moment think that there are other similar cases, but this was a case brought to my notice, and I raised the matter fully aware that the hon. Member was not in the Department at the time. I was anxious to know whether any steps are being taken by the Department to ensure that nothing of the kind shall arise again. Had I known in time, I would have looked up the letter and have given the hon. Member an opportunity of ascertaining the facts.

Captain HACKING: I am not complaining at all, for the hon. Member has the right to bring forward any matter that he cares to bring before the Committee. I assure him that this was an isolated case. I will see that it is investigated, and I will let the hon. Member know the result of the investigations.

LABOUR AND HEALTH BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £348,200, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the
sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health)."— [Note: £174,000 has been voted on account.]

ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £142,550, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."— [Note: £70,000 has been voted on account.]

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £129,475, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings."— [Note: £63,000 has been voted on account.]

PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,075,110, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments, and Brompton Cemetery."— [Note: £530,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. AMMON: The Committee would like to have some explanation as to what exactly is meant by item C, where there is Such a large decrease in the amount for unemployment relief work as £25,000. This sort of thing is running through all the Votes, and it is a pretty clear indication that the Government are saving money at the expense of the unemployed. As this is such a big item we are entitled to some explanation.

Captain HACKING: I will explain the decrease, though my reply a short time ago to the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) on another Vote really covers what I have to say in connection with this particular item. Although it is anticipated that the labour and material costs will actually be higher in 1926 than
in 1925, the decrease shown in the last year's provision is due to the fact that, in view of the special need for economy at this time, the work of re-decoration has as far as possible been deferred.
I would argue that one of the reasons for deferring redecorations— which if the country were more prosperous could be gone on with at once— is because, in spite of what the hon. Member has said, there is not a great deal of unemployment in this particular trade. That being so, we would not necessarily, by increasing the amount of money spent on decorations, be giving more employment. The employment in the particular trade is so good at the moment that we would simply be transferring workpeople from another place into our employment.

ART AND SCIENCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £215,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."— [Note: £107,500 has been voted on account.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I am sorry there is no representative of the Post Office here—

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer) rose.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I merely wanted to ask one question—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I have already put the Question.

Ordered, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection."

Ordered, "That all Petitions against the Bill, presented Five clear days before the meeting of the Committee, be referred to the Committee."

Ordered, "That the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel or Agents heard in support of the Bill."

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."

Ordered, "That Three be the quorum." — [Viscount Wolmer.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Viscount Curzon.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Eight o'Clock.